E-mail
Print
The state of the students
A response to Mr. Knappen's letter of Sept. 22
By Sam Koller
The question has been posed, where are the students, and why are they not involved in the SA? As I find Mr. Knappen's arguments entirely unsatisfactory, allow me to present an alternative theory.
Polis is an Ancient Greek term which is often translated as “city,” “community” or “state.” More directly, it means “the people.” In political science jargon it refers to the total group of people who are interested in political matters, keep themselves well-informed, and are aware of what their government is doing, irrespective of their party affiliation or personal politics. In a more modern generic definition, the Polis is the group of people who are going to write letters to the editor, and possibly show up with signs and megaphones if/when the government fouls up. Many of you might not be aware of this, but the UW-Milwaukee campus does not, in any real sense, have a polis. Further, a very strong argument may be made that it is the Student Association itself which has done everything in its power to destroy any semblance of a polis that might possibly form.
The primary factor in creating a polis is the ability of those who might be interested in keeping themselves informed to get a hold of the information interesting to them. The SA, for all their talk of transparency, has done less than nothing to encourage this. Their agendas are available only on request, their meetings are announced only on an obscure posting board in the back corner of the Student Union’s third floor, and their minutes are infrequently released and nearly impossible to find. Most political scientists are aware that the ability to review government spending is a critical check for citizens to have, if not the most critical. It is thus somewhat staggering that the SA has removed from its minutes all mention of funding, deleting any minutes at which the senate made any funding decisions. So apparently, the SA is transparent in every way except those that matter.
Secondly, but only slightly less important to a polis, is the ability of the citizens to understand and familiarize themselves with the process of government. Again, the SA's actions seem more to impede this then assist it. The SA has rewritten its governing documents repeatedly, to the point where they themselves are sometimes confused as to which edition of their own laws they are supposed to be following. Last year the allocations committees rules where rewritten four times, the finance committee’s rules three times and the election rules rewritten twice. The Union Policy Board now has three separate and contradictory processes for allocating space in the Union. For a period of almost a year, several provisions of the funding allocations rules where contingent on the chair and vice chair of that committee publicly desecrating themselves. Is it any wonder that the students want nothing to do with a process that is arbitrary, incoherent and at times completely insane? Yet the speaker of the senate stated flatly at the Sept. 21 meeting that the SA fully intended to do extensive revisions to the committee rules again this year.
Which brings us to the third point critical to the formation of a Polis, the ability of the citizens to have meaningful involvement with their government. I have actually taken the time to look over what few minutes are online, and talk to a few of the people who regularly show up to SA meetings. To the best anyone is aware, not once in the last two years has a non office holding student been allowed to speak at the SA senate about any legislation, ever. Please note, this is not for lack of trying. I have personally observed half a dozen situations of a student being reprimanded by the Speaker of the Senate for attempting to get a senators attention in order to be allowed to speak. I have on other occasions observed several students, exasperated by said reprimands, bring signs and placards to the senate floor, in order to have their opinions seen by the Senate. Again, they where reprimanded for their attempt to make their opinions known. So why then, when every attempt to interact with ones government has failed, would the students of this campus pay any attention to a senate that consistently ignores us?
This article will be continued in next week’s issue, I hope.
> Comments
Esteemed UWM Alum on Oct 13, 2008 at 12:05 PM:
Sam are you even a student anymore? If you're aren't, then I will have to write an editorial about fringe, idiotic theories as well.
Your group lost their office because they are disruptive to the student body- Plain and simple. You argue with students, and have gotten MANY complaints. The actions of your officers at last years UPB meetings were apalling, not even mentioning BREAST FEEDING in the union.
I suggest maybe growing up and trying to win the hearts and minds of this years SA instead of complaining about years past.
UWM Student on Oct 13, 2008 at 04:48 PM:
Esteemed UWM Alum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Do you have anything to say to the substance of what Sam wrote?
General Albert Pike on Oct 13, 2008 at 05:14 PM:
To address the contents and arguments of Mr. Koller's article, I think he's missing a key point that has secretly perverted SA's activities over the past few years. Russell E. Rueden, the French Foreign Legion, and Papa Russ's connections to the Illuminati have been subverting the activity of our Student Government in the past years. Thank you for remaining vigilant, Mr. Koller. Teach them Yankees.
Sincerely yours,
General Pike CSA Army Confederate States of America
Didn;t you hear?!! on Oct 13, 2008 at 08:58 PM:
Didn't you hear??? SA is a state actor!!
Response to "didn;t you hear?!!" on Oct 13, 2008 at 09:19 PM:
No, there isn't one shred of truth behind that.
Love, 36.09(5)
p.s. idiot
Helen Mamarche on Oct 13, 2008 at 09:20 PM:
General Pike is my hero
Helen Mamarche on Oct 13, 2008 at 09:20 PM:
General Pike is my hero
Michelle R. English on Oct 13, 2008 at 09:51 PM:
Allow me to confuse the self-proclaimed "Esteemed UWM Alum", who, by his choice of wording could clearly be no other than the very student I outed two years ago for breaking state discrimination laws when he used openly discriminatory statements against public breastfeeding to support his arguments in favor of changing student org office use rules, with some facts.
1.) Yes, Sam is in fact a student.
2.) Sam has NOT been involved with the org you have just assumed he was attacking the SA over for two years. Nor was the individual who so crassly disrupted the meeting at which I was present last year, when she was repeatedly asked to move away from the UPB member she had decided to start whispering to after all orgs had been told not to speak further, an officer. I, however, was an officer of the org to which you are referring last year.
3.) Despite your personal statement to myself at the time, you have, in this message, now tacitly admitted that you WERE talking about me personally when you made your statements in the Senate against women breastfeeding in the Student Union. As I pointed out in the legislation I wrote, which while it was very cleverly avoided DID make it into the hands of every member of the Senate, so I do know you are aware of the laws unless you didn't bother to read the bill I wrote, public breastfeeding is NOT illegal. Discrimination on the basis of sex, or any gender related subject, however, is.
4.) Sam's article is not about that org, nor even about attacking anyone, but rather about asking why our student government, which is intended to represent the interests of the students (ALL of the students, not just the tiny clique that has managed to maintain control of the student government through legislative manipulation and outright violations of the principles of democracy), continually contradict themselves by insisting that they are completely forthright and transparent while withholding the information that would allow any kind of informed decision-making on the part of the students to take place.
In the interest of real communication, I would ask that you attempt to either refrain from speaking, or address the topic at hand. Personal attacks against the author of an article asking relevant questions about genuine issues does nothing but irritate readers and open yourself to criticism. In simple terms, taking potshots at a person because you don't like what they said makes you look small. Please, try to control yourself.
The Real Jimmy Lemke on Oct 15, 2008 at 03:00 PM:
Dude...of course I didn't write that.
I'm a Post editor, and only the editorial editor is allowed to comment on articles -- so even if I were to comment on the article, it wouldn't be with my own name.
If I ever use the words "Lemke out," I give you permission to punch me in the balls.
You won't find me commenting on articles in the editorial section. I rarely read them. I do agree that there is a large level of apathy among the students at UWM, but I believe the solution lies in athletics, as I always do -- school spirit among students and alumni is never built up anywhere more than through athletics.
Say NO to the SA Bailout! on Oct 14, 2008 at 12:05 AM:
NO SA BAILOUT!
Crazy Critic on Oct 14, 2008 at 07:54 AM:
Like I posted on the most recent SA-SHAC article, all the parameters are predetermined to such an extent that stacking who fills what decision-making roles makes SA a series of fixed outcomes. Although I wish they would make their scripts more comical, along the lines of the increased programming they now have for the sake of shared governance entertainment...
WAKE UP! on Oct 14, 2008 at 09:43 AM:
Nobody cares that Sam Koller got screwed by student government and that his smelly friends in the SGC didn't get an office to misuse. You know why nobody cares? Cause everyone else on campus outside your small little group of gamers would've done the SAME DAMN THING! Get over it! You smell, you lost, you're irrelevant. Go get English prego again and use your newborn as a Pekachu.
Ouch on Oct 14, 2008 at 04:18 PM:
Flame of the month! Anymore kindle?
Amanda J. Mitchell on Oct 14, 2008 at 08:31 PM:
Pardon me, but aren't we beyond using insults to prove a point?
I know both Michelle and Sam. And frankly your insults are completely baseless. If any of you feels like further insulting people, feel free to direct some of them at me, too, because y'know, I was president of that organization last year.
What do you think of that, huh? Smelly friends, huh? Have we met? Well, if we have, then you ought to rethink your whole outlook.
Peace.
Michelle R. English on Oct 14, 2008 at 08:51 PM:
pulls out bag of marshmallows, amused by the sophomoric flames being tossed at her
I find it incredibly funny that everyone who feels the need to insult and attempt to diminish Sam, me, and my friends, feels the need to hide behind silly aliases and childish mudslinging. If you wish your opinion to be taken seriously, why don't you stand behind your words. You want to be heard, put YOUR NAME where the form says "Name:", not some stupid, infantile handle that means nothing.
Now, is there anyone who has ANYTHING to say on the actual point of the article, or are the people with opinions beyond "blah blah blah, look at me, look at me, I'm calling smart people names" refraining from comment to avoid similar treatment?
skewers marshmallow and waits for more flames to toast it on
Still.. on Oct 14, 2008 at 10:44 PM:
I still would like to know how the SA is not a state actor?
Boy Wonder on Oct 14, 2008 at 11:00 PM:
I believe Michelle is right. It seems the only defense your SA has is to use slander against the author. You can't even defend your SA on the merits of the topic. Disgraceful.
Individuals aren't allowed to speak or carry signs in your meeting? And you're kicking people out for trying? Furthermore, other student govts. across the state have commented on the corruption of your elections. I like to read the UWM Post just to have an example of how representation shouldn't be. Yours is a joke.
Marcus Cicero asserted that Freedom was participation and power. A government that doesn't believe in the empowerment of the individual to have a voice is not a govt. with representation, but rather an aristocracy.
In our student government we provide ample time in the beginning of the meeting for anyone to speak on an issue or concern they have.
Frodo Baggins on Oct 14, 2008 at 11:02 PM:
Ok! Amanda, you're an idiot too!
As for you Sylver, the reason no one else is commenting is because everyone can see the personal bias shining through. Now, I hope you are happy because this time I actually used my real name!
And to refer to yourself and the rest of the retard squad as smart is about the funniest thing I have ever heard. Role play your way right out of this University, help to make it a better place!
now I want you to take that flaming marshmallow and shove it right up your ass!
Take Care, Frodo Baggins
P.S. Amanda, terrible work with the org last year! Seems to be a repeating trend... Hope all is well!
Elizabeth Halvorson on Oct 15, 2008 at 12:43 AM:
First off I find the mudslinging to be appalling! If this is supposed to be a response forum for the article in question, why is it being used to pushed personal beliefs and/or agendas?
That being said:
I find the article informative and very well written. I also agree with the author of this article as well. When the people are ignored how can a government properly function? Those of us who are not politicians look to government for guidance. How can we, the students, look to our own government when they can not even guide themselves? I have taken the time to read the SA bylaws and the rewrites the author has mentioned. I have been to SA meetings when I was informed about them, sometimes less than a day before they happened, and am one of the many students who has tried to have her voice heard. How is this government? How is this repesenting the students? These are the fundamental questions that those students who do know about the SA and what they do are asking. These are the same questions I hear other students ask who know nothing of the SA other than "it's like the student council back at my High School right?" So the question is: why does the SA not communicate with the student body in an open and honest fashion? Why do they refuse to admit their responsibility to the students as a whole?
Michael Ray English on Oct 15, 2008 at 01:17 AM:
Ok, first off, I don't know whether this will get posted or not. Either way, I plan on making a copy of this whole thing and seeing to it that it is circulated.
My Name is Michael Ray English. My Daughter is Michelle Rae English. I try not to involve Myself in her dealings with Campus Life, but when an individual such as the "Esteemed UWM Alum", Jimmy Lemke", or "Frodo Baggins" uses an article about a problem the author sees as a means of attack, then I question the validity of the individual. And yes, your reference to Breast Feeding IS a personal attack on an individual who had nothing to do with the article itself. It wasn't even MENTIONED!! Mister Lemke, below is your own comment;
"Jimmy Lemke on Oct 13, 2008 at 10:53 PM:
Sam you are crazy. Go SUFC. Stop breastfeeding. Period. Lemke out."
If you did NOT post this, then you need to find out who is using your name to incite inflammatory rhetoric. If you DID post this, then you owe some people an apology. You obviously did not read the article or you would have realized that there was nothing in it to indicate that the author was concerned about the "Esteemed UWM Alum" comment;
"Your group lost their office because they are disruptive to the student body- Plain and simple. You argue with students, and have gotten MANY complaints. The actions of your officers at last years UPB meetings were apalling, not even mentioning BREAST FEEDING in the union." (HHHmmm, Breast Feeding mentioned by two different individuals??? And in the same context. A link?)
and, once again, NOT A WORD about Breast Feeding. The article was one students perception of a Campus Organization and its functioning ability.
Personally, I think the article itself was well written. It made the points the author intended in a concise and thought out manner. Whether I agree with it or not, is not relevant to me as I am not a student, but it is relevant to those that are. Freedom of Speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. Slander and defamation of character are not.
Oh, and by the way, using an alias in this day and age of Computer Information and IP tracking does not guarantee anonymity. I may be a caveman when it comes to Computer Use, but I'm willing to bet someone can track the individuals who posted here if it becomes necessary.
In closing, if anyone believes FOR ONE DAMN SECOND that I am Michelle claiming to be her dad, I will be more than Happy to show up at the Student Union with My Illinois CDL in hand with Her standing RIGHT BESIDE ME with Her Wisconsin Drivers License and UWM Student ID.
Michael Ray English
Michael Ray English on Oct 15, 2008 at 02:18 AM:
Almost forgot. Thank You Wake Up for the compliment. If Sam and Michelle do decide to get together and have a child, then calling My Grandchild an instrument of Good is a Great Compliment. Again, Thank You.
Michael Ray English
Wake Up on Oct 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM:
Only a flaming retard gamer would have that response "Michael."
Also, no one cares about you showing up waving around your driver's license. You probably shouldn't be driving, you might have a flashback to your latest strategic game where you envision yourself driving a tank or something in World of Warcraft.
Flaming moron.
Amanda Mitchell on Oct 15, 2008 at 10:52 AM:
Thank you, Frodo Baggins. Really. Here's an idea, grow a pair and tell us who you are. Oh, wait, that would require you to be accountable for what you say. I have the inclination to believe that may be too far beyond your reasoning capabilities.
"P.S. Amanda, terrible work with the org last year! Seems to be a repeating trend... Hope all is well!"
It was running fine until the 2006-2007 academic year. Someone whom I will not name was president at that time and seemed to run the organization's public face through the mud. Don't blame me, Frodo, it was already ruined way before I got to it. Does insulting me make you feel better?
Elizabeth Halvorson on Oct 15, 2008 at 11:36 AM:
I just find the level of maturity surprising since 98% of the comments to the article is nothing but libelous. This is a university forum for a university newspaper and as a fellow student I find this behavior disgusting. Attacking an alum who is willing to name herself, not to mention a students parent, I am starting to doubt the logical thinking of my fellow collegians. Those of you responsible for the mudslinging know who you are. We are college students how about intellectual and logical conversation about the author's article? I don't think that too much to ask for especially form an 'Esteemed UWM Alum' and all his followers.
Miss Manners on Oct 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM:
While I find all of this petty bickering offensive to the extreme, I do not believe I will waste my breath with lessons of courtesy here, as it would obviously do no good. However, I do have one point to make. If one is to be taken at all seriously, should not one strive to at the very minimum, utilize the correct word for the meaning one is attempting to express? In this particular case, I am picking out a vocabulic faux pas I have seen twice now, one from someone who has evidently already graduated from the University, and so would be presumably already able to tell the difference. The singular of "Alumni" is "Alumnus" for male, and "Alumna" for female. Alum is a spice, used for cooking. So unless you are calling one another soup ingredients, should you not be referring to those persons who have had higher education degrees conferred upon them by the correct word? When you abbreviate a word for the sake of simplicity for your own mind, you often say something far different from your intended meaning.
FactCheck.org on Oct 15, 2008 at 01:11 PM:
If you thought Obama spreads a lot of lies during his campaign stops, check out the below link. It appears Miss Manners isn't as smart as she claims to be! Time to play warcraft!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alum
Political Outsider on Oct 15, 2008 at 01:32 PM:
Like my name says, I'm a political outsider who is in no way involved in the UWM politics, but found my way to this article and then to these comments.
Let me get this straight, someone's Dad is sticking up for them and will make a copy of this and circulate it. Big f'ing deal Dad. First of all, who goes crying to their Dad when they have problems with on-campus activities and secondly, what kind of Dad jumps in and fights his daughter's battles?
And Dad, are you threatening to search IP addresses to find out who the comments came from? First off, this is a message board listed on a newspaper article, not some kidie porn website the FBI needs to trace. And even if you did know who said this, are you planning on bringing charges against someone? And what would those charges be, Dad? Empty threats from an adult figure do wonders for your daughters upbringing. You're teaching her let others fight her battles.
In order to gain an idea of why no ones cares about student government, re-read all these comments. Who gives a shit, put your heads down, go to work, make progress, shut the hell up about it.
On the other hand, though, at least student government is preparing our generation to go right to work with our real governments. Useless bitching and moaning, waste or time, efforts, words, money.
Just like real government, you are all crying little babies who need attention because their mommies didn't hug them enough as a child and never impressed their daddies.
Amanda Mitchell on Oct 15, 2008 at 01:34 PM:
Since when is this a political forum? Obama has nothing to do with this. However, I would like to point out that dictionary.com is not a terribly reliable source of information. So much for the "inter tubes."
Ed on Oct 15, 2008 at 04:29 PM:
I've haven't seem so many back handed comments in one forum since I deleted my WarCraft account a year ago! Awesome!
Michelle R. English on Oct 15, 2008 at 05:05 PM:
Hmmm...
Something to point out...
While I obviously have an interest in the issues broached in this string of commentary, I wonder, has anyone other than myself actually read the User Content Policy placed directly below the space allotted for comments? It states clearly RIGHT THERE that use of any name other than your own legal name is prohibited. So not only are those who use silly handles behaving in an immature manner, they are violating the user policy clearly marked on this very forum.
By posting to these comment pages in any manner beyond that which I have asked, and which you agreed to do when you clicked submit, you are actually in violation of the rules of the very site in which you are posting. How... interesting.
Of course, while it is arguable that words cannot cause actual injury, slandering a fellow student, or, in one case I know of, an employee of the POST, would fall under the second, clearly posted prohibition in the policy as well.
And before anyone tells me I don't need to tell them what is printed on the same page I see before me now, obviously if you feel the need to launch personal attacks against me, or anyone else here, you clearly did not READ the policy, and so should be reminded that it is there, and yes, it does apply to everyone, including YOU and ME.
Re: Miss Manners on Oct 15, 2008 at 05:55 PM:
BURP!
Outside Observer on Oct 15, 2008 at 06:29 PM:
From the outside looking in i see two things:
The first of which is a Student Association that cares a lot about the students, and wants to prohibit inappropriate use of office space (ie playing video games and rolling magical di that will supposedly allow you to grow wings, fly away, and rescue the queen of never never land).
The second thing I see here is the inability of the gamers to grow up. Having your father post on the message boards is kind of lame, to tell you the truth.
wISHFUL tHINKING on Oct 15, 2008 at 06:42 PM:
How I wish the great Amaithi Lennox would resume posting to Post articles! He aired some challenging thoughts during the spring 2008 SA election but has been silent since.
AL on Oct 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM:
Thanks...?
Onto the more important stuff: first off, excellent article Sam.
Last year, I attempted to organize a protest against the highly questionable activities of the SA in relation to the elections in which the ruling party was permitted to, essentially, boot the other party off of the ballot for the actions of that party's SUPPORTERS. This would be much like Sarah Palin being kicked off of the McCain ticket because she failed to tell a heckler that shouting 'Kill him!' in relation to Obama is a little out of line. That is not how politics works, and that sort of behavior is inexcuseable in a democracy. However we the students are just as to blame for this situation as they are. In spite of the hysteria surrounding last year's election (and frankly I hold the Post responsible for exaggerating the situation in some cases), only three students showed up to protest the election, and during this time the SA members present merely stood by and snickered. Instead of engaging those who were obviously upset about the shady nature of the election, they stood by and made sophomoric jokes. The SA is very much out of touch with student life, however the students themselves are just as much to blame because very, very few of us are actually willing to stand up and voice our displeasure.
To the Outside Observer, I think you owe the Englishes an apology; a father expressing interest in his daughter's affairs is absolutely nothing to ridicule. Stick to the issues. As for Jimmy Lemke, I can tell you that he would never use such crude language or sign off as 'Lemke out'. The man is a writer, not a Star Trek character.
In perusing these comments, I'm disgusted by just how juvenile and pathetic those who disagree with Sam's points are behaving. These comments are reminiscent of the sort of things that certain op-ed columnists/SA members wrote for the Post last year, and it was pointless then too. Sam, you wrote a great article and you touched on a lot of very important issues. If they try to block your continuation of the next week, give em hell until they give in.
wISHFUL tHINKING fULFILLED on Oct 16, 2008 at 07:41 AM:
Thank you, Amaithi. I was pleasantly surprised that you posted, and I was glad to read what you had to say.
Amanda Mitchell on Oct 16, 2008 at 11:17 AM:
Outside Observer on Oct 15, 2008 at 06:29 PM:
From the outside looking in i see two things:
"The first of which is a Student Association that cares a lot about the students, and wants to prohibit inappropriate use of office space (ie playing video games and rolling magical di that will supposedly allow you to grow wings, fly away, and rescue the queen of never never land).
The second thing I see here is the inability of the gamers to grow up. Having your father post on the message boards is kind of lame, to tell you the truth."
Considering that the org has been told on several occasions that it's good for the UWM community, I feel your first statement is incredibly short-sighted.
The second comment is also extremely personally biased. Did it ever occur to you that, just like any other "group" or "stereotype" you could put people under that there are ALWAYS exceptions? To think that all gamers have the exact same characteristics presents a microscopic world view that perhaps could be broadened a bit. Do you like when people lump you into a group?
Michael Ray English on Oct 16, 2008 at 11:35 AM:
Mr. Lemke
First, I want to Thank You for your response. At the time of My posting, My Daughter informed Me that she wasn't certain if it was really you that had made the comment, and that, as you also stated, only the Editorial Editor could comment to articles such as this. Hence, My wording in My post. If it sounded like I was impugning your character, you have My Apologies. That was not My intent. Obviously, someone wanted to get you into trouble. And, unlike those that hide behind a computer, I am not afraid to Apologize to you publicly if you wish. I also want to Thank Your Editorial Editor for allowing you to post here. It shows Character and a Level of Responsibility that is seldom seen nowadays within society. It is my hope that one day you and I shall meet.
Michael Ray English
Michelle R. English on Oct 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM:
To AL: Wow! Thanks for the defense.
To everyone else, we had figured out that the post by "Jimmy Lemke" was not, in fact, him. I've met a few of the poeple who work at the Post and I do take it seriously as a newspaper, because the individuals tasked with it's production take it seriously, and try to report the news of our campus in unbiased and unobstructed formats. Editorial articles are independently written, and reflect opinions and individual interpretation of campus life in addition to facts, so are naturally going to have a personal bias to them. Despite this understandable point, many articles I've seen in this section are information driven, not opinion based. I give the editors of the Post full credit for keeping the post a non-partisan, honest news resource, no matter what is thrown at them. The Post deserves credit for reporting the news as clearly and fully as it is able - dependent upon their ability to access the information they need, which is why I still read it.
Also, thank you for underscoring my dad's very point. He usually doesn't get involved, and to be honest, I didn't tell him to respond, I simply asked him to read the article, because I thought what Sam had to say was interesting and enlightening. In my opinion, I think university parents SHOULD take more of an interest in what happens on campus, and I'm proud of my dad for doing so this time. Not because he 'defended me' or 'fought my battles for me', as was accused, but because he took an interest in the happenings at the university, and took the time to react to them. It is MY opinion that more parents SHOULD be involved in their kids' colleges, as that fosters communication between young adults and their parents. I'm not saying that mom or dad should be standing over your shoulder, because, after all, this is college, not high school, we can regulate our own behavior, one would hope. Rather that parents take the time once in awhile to look around the many available public access areas, such as this website, and keep somewhat current on general events. Then, when you go home for Christmas, you don't have to worry about the 40 thousand question inquisition because they have no idea what you do at school other than your grades. Parents showing an interest does prove they care, but having them only show interest in me when I went home on break and really didn't want to be thinking about school actually irritated me my first year. Then again, that's merely my opinion.
shutup on Oct 16, 2008 at 01:34 PM:
You people are ridiculous. Michelle, no one cares about your dad. Michael, no one cares about your thoughts. Sam, no one cares about your trumped up false conspiracy theories. Gamers, no one cares you lost your office, and certainly no one with any credibility would term your organization "good for the UWM community." AL, no one in yelled "Kill him" referring to Obama at a Palin rally. It didn't happen, it was made up. The Secret Service investigated and found the claim to be false.
General Albert Pike on Oct 16, 2008 at 01:52 PM:
Mr. English's response defending his daughter was not only honorable, but it was his duty to protect the honor of his woman kin.
Go Panthers!
General Pike
Amanda Mitchell on Oct 16, 2008 at 01:54 PM:
Gamers, no one cares you lost your office, and certainly no one with any credibility would term your organization "good for the UWM community."
Would you call yourself credible? And, what if that someone was in our very own student government, at a meeting, no less? This isn't about the org's office, and yet people seem to keep bringing it up. Seems to me you'd only know that if you were involved in the student government or somehow involved with that very organization.
Credibility is a relative word. It varies by whose view one is looking at it from. So much for your "credibility."
Michelle R. English on Oct 16, 2008 at 02:10 PM:
One question? If no-one cares about all these things, none of which is related in any way to the article itself, then why are some individuals still throwing tantrums about them? If you don't care about the things YOU keep bringing to the table, why are you bothering to bring them up? I would have to agree with Amanda on the point that credibility is relative. The "credible" people to whom I defer are members OF the SA, and members of the University Faculty. And she's right, we've gotten genuine compliments from both, numerous times. The people whose opinions count, are those who don't try to attack anonymously, and then expect to be taken seriously. You want to tell me to shut up, do it to my face, not from behind some silly 'blogger' style self-title. Otherwise, take your own advice and shutup.
Oh, and General Pike, while your support is worded a bit anachronistically, thank you anyway. That was quite chivalrous of you.
Michael Ray English on Oct 16, 2008 at 02:56 PM:
Just a quick question. When did Honor, Integrity, and Respect become ridiculous?? sits back and waits with interest for the comments to get back to the topic of the article
Tyler Draheim on Oct 16, 2008 at 03:24 PM:
All of this has gotten entirely out of hand and I do agree that we need to stick to the topic at hand. Sam wrote this article, not because of a certain bias with SA, but because of his genuine interest in seeing a positive change from the past practices of the Student Government here at UWM. I welcome this constructive criticism and while I may not agree with everything that was said, I do respect his opinion and I will ensure you that the past problems with transparency are currently being and will continue to be addressed. Some of these changes take time because a system that has been in place for such a long time is difficult to change overnight.
We will be unveiling a new SA website in the next week or so and plan to have it updated weekly so that all information regarding meetings, minutes, budgets, and decisions are easily and readily available to all students. I will also add that if there is a particular piece of information that you would like, you can contact me and I can make sure that your requests are pointed in the right direction if I can't help you directly.
I want you all to continue challenging us here in SA to help make your overall experience at UWM increasingly better. We know that we are never going to make everyone happy with all the decisions we make, but with your continuing participation in discussion, we can AT LEAST begin to garner a better understanding of what is of particular interest to individuals and groups.
With that being said, we are all a part of the same University and we need to be civil (even on message boards) and ensure that the voices and opinions of students are not stifled due to fear of ridicule.
Respectfully,
Tyler Draheim SA President
Anonymous on Oct 16, 2008 at 03:32 PM:
Aj is a god-like man!
Anonymous on Oct 16, 2008 at 03:34 PM:
AJ Piwarun is a sex icon in America
The Real General Albert Pike on Oct 16, 2008 at 03:38 PM:
Stop posting as me!! Please have this removed.
Elizabeth Halvorson on Oct 16, 2008 at 05:36 PM:
Tyler thank you so much for being a voice of reason in this forum. I look forward to the new SA website and the changes that SA is looking to make.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Oct 16, 2008 at 11:17 PM:
Call me crazy, and many do, but I agree with Tyler Draheim on some things. We all need to stick to the topic at hand. Being the victim of personal attacks, I know firsthand that when people cannot address the message, they attack the messenger.
I do however think, and I may be wrong, that Sam does have a bias against the SA. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think he should admit to it. Whether SA deserves that bias and whether that bias is borne out of things the SA has done that Sam dislikes is at this point inconsequential. I hope to be proven wrong on this point, but I do not see Sam suddenly supporting SA even if it adopts reforms addressing many or all of his issues. I personally believe that he'd just find new things to complain about, but as I said, I would welcome evidence to disprove that stance.
I do not agree with Sam's contention that the SA has "done everything in its power" to prevent people from being involved in student government. There are certain rules that people must follow in order to efficiently and effectively contribute. That means not disrupting meetings by speaking out, or distracting senators by holding signage. There are right ways and wrong ways, and like it or not, the wrong way usually involves any lobbying during a meeting. Public meetings are to allow the public to view the work of the governmental body, not necessarily an opportunity or guarantee that the public can or should participate.
Information and agendas are sent out as required by state law. If you dislike state law, fight for changes at the state level. The SA does send all of this information to campus media that requests it, and SA cannot help if that campus media decides not to throw the agenda on the front page of their website. SA has had, for years, a problem with the capacity it is permitted to use for its website, and that continues to be something SA works towards remedying. A new SA server, that would accommodate all of our visions of total and complete transparency was actually recently cock-blocked by Vice Chancellor Helen Mamarchev.
I, like Sam, think it's important that SA put monthly line by line expenditures on its website. I attempted to introduce legislation regarding this at a prior senate meeting, but the executive branch ensured me that once the website space issue was remedied, that it would do this voluntarily, and that any legislation demanding as such from the senate would be seen as a "power grab" or a slap in the face.
In regards to the false charge that SA doesn't know which governing documents they are operating under, I disagree. While it is true, that a senator not regularly attending meetings or not keeping themselves up to date may be under the impression that the old bylaws are current, largely, those that are involved regularly in SA typically do know which governing documents are current. It does not help that they may not be updated on the website right away, but we've discussed that issue.
There are numerous opportunities to have meaningful participation and input into your student government, but each person does not get to define individually how that will occur. Write legislation, and send it out to senators for sponsorship. Meet with Senators. Talk to them before or after a senate meeting. There's no shortage of ways to have meaningful input, you just have to do it correctly. The proper way to do this is NOT during a senate meeting though. A senate meeting is a time for the senate to conduct its business amongst itself. It's not the time for the public to participate, the time for that is outside of the actual meeting itself, and there's nothing wrong with that. Governments throughout the country operate that way. It is true, some operate differently, but this is the way that the SA at UWM operates in order to be more efficient, and they ought not be accused of being noninclusive just because they've established rules for when participation is or isn't permitted. There are endless proper opportunities, but at a senate meeting is NOT one of them.
One of the ways to get involved if you would like to participate in a senate meeting is to fill one of the many open senate seats that are vacant. The same problem occurs every year. There are 50 senate seats, and I don't think I've ever seen more than 45 of them filled, and of that, I can't recall there ever being more than 35 senators at a senate meeting. If you want to get involved, get involved. If you'd rather not get involved and just complain without action, then continue, but don't be shocked when those of us who participate react dismissively.
AL on Oct 17, 2008 at 09:53 AM:
I would like to address a couple of points in the previous post, as I do feel that some of the wording was a bit off. I think that to say that Sam is, essentially, complaining for the sake of complaining is a slap in the face to the students who are concerned about what is actually going on inside of the SA. Perhaps this was not the intention (I certainly hope not), however the way in which this idea was expressed is rather dismissive of Sam's concerns.
My personal issue with the formats of these Senate meetings has always been the very point which was just expressed: that the public is discouraged from participating in them. The issue with simply raising concerns to individuals when it is most convenient for them is that a.) the audience is significantly diminished, and so people who may actually agree with the opinion being expressed may not be exposed to it as opposed to said opinion being expressed in a more public forum, and b.) it is much easier for senators and the like to dismiss these concerns or simply ignore the person expressing them. While I do not want to believe that the students involved in the SA would conduct themselves in such a dishonorable fashion, I have been the personal victim of this sort of dismissiveness on the part of some senators and so I do feel that these concerns are justified. If the SA wants to hold its meetings without public input, that's wonderful and is their right, however the SA owes it to its constituents to hold bi-monthly meetings at the very least in which the students will be allowed to directly engage officials in public discussion.
By doing this, the SA can begin to repair its very tarnished reputation with the students of UWM. While I'm aware that many governments throughout the country and the world operate with input from concerned people expressed privately, I think it is naive to say that just because they do it one day means that we cannot do it another. First of all, our student government is much, much smaller than the governments which I imagine you were referring to, and second of all, our student government, between Russ Rueden and last year's election, needs to be more sensitive and MUCH more transparent in regards to its conduct.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Oct 17, 2008 at 10:39 AM:
Actually, when I was on the 7 person school board in St. Francis, we operated that way. I do agree though that perhaps every-other meeting could involve a public comment period. Even then though, public comment is typically restricted to the items on the agenda.
I'd say that we could hold an open forum once a month with Senators there, but I'm not foolish enough to think that more then the same 10 people would actually show up. And 10 attendees is extraordinarily generous. We likely wouldn't have gotten more then 10 students to show up to learn about Chapter 17 if we hadn't ordered food.
My point is that too many people don't care, so doing the things that would make SA appear more transparent would turn into a waste of time, much like the student sessions on RPP, where no one showed up. NO ONE. I don't know. I'm not against being more transparent, but chances are likelier than not that it would be a waste of my time. One person can show up and talk to me before the Senate meeting, I don't need to plan an hour on a separate night to hold a listening session for that.
If more then 10 students wanted transparency and would actually show up when we provide it to them, there wouldn't be a problem, but that's not the case. I do think we should explore the possibility of having an open forum at senate meetings, allowing 2 minutes to students with concerns.
In regard to your comment above about my feelings on the origination of Sam's piece. I don't think that he's complaining for the sake of complaining, but I do think that he would continually find something to complain about, regardless of positive progress. That's not complaining just for the sake of it, that's taking a side and being blind to the positive changes of the other side. I think Sam is a complainer when it comes to SA, and will complain in spite of positive change. I think Sam has concerns but that he would find new things to complain about regardless of what positive things are happening.
I am dismissive to some of Sam's concerns because of the character and history of the messenger. You might as well ask me to take the manufactured concerns of Scott Dettman seriously, because no one does. They know his bias and he's not as credible because of it. They may have some legitimacy, but because of the messenger, they are easily discounted. Is that appropriate? Maybe not, but that's the way it is.
There was nothing wrong with last year's elections beyond the fact that there was no competition. Competition breeds higher quality products, and I think a competitive election would have made both parties better for the student body. That being said, there should be absolutely no expectation that everyone should ignore blatant repeated violations of the rules set up to establish orderly elections just so for the sake of this competition.
I think there should be some deregulation of the election process, however, the rules in place at any given time MUST be adhered to, and they were blatantly disregarded by ASAP, therefore, the ONLY option to remedy this, to punish the crime, to deter future violations, was to eliminate ASAP from the ballot. If SUFC were to break the rules so blatantly and repeatedly, not one person would give them a pass, yet, everyone wants to give ASAP a pass.
Anyhow, that's what I think, and you may not agree, but it is what it is.
Adolf Hitler on Oct 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM:
You people need to get laid more often.
Pundit on Oct 18, 2008 at 11:27 AM:
Yeah folks, the UWM Post website is too high-minded a place for such sophomoric antics! If you want to hold linguistic battles of reason mixed with putdowns, I recommend the UWM Leader website. After all, they have less respectable features such as a sex column (a trashy tradition that's been going on since at least 2005).
On a side note, I appreciate the frequent contributions of KJD, a true crusader of conservatism. AL, I like your thoroughness of analysis but believe that the SA should adopt a more authoritarian approach to dealing with students as well as with faculty and staff. It is more difficult to persuade the chancellor or the dean of students when you have insurrections against the official will of the students and all the punishment that can be administered is a reprimand.
For example, last winter at least one campus ambassador sent emails on paid time to her list of client students urging them to lobby the SA to fund the resource centers at their full requested amounts. Although administrative rules resulted in only a warning to all campus ambassadors to refrain from such activities on paid time, karma seemed to be in effect because when I saw the individual in question at a bus stop last week she seemed to have gained weight. Either her VOX collection of prophylactics failed her or (more likely because her personality turns off potential partners) her mechanical services job isn’t working her hard enough to keep the pounds off.