uwm sa election report redacted

7/27/2019 UWM SA Election Report Redacted

1/4


2/4

Because the papers came out more than six weeks late, one could assume that the entire

process should have been backed up for a comparable amount of time in order for

individuals to register their party and to participate in the elections. If that had occurred,

the People of Change Party (which the Senate approved on March 3, 2013) would have

been eligible to appear on the ballot.

However, as stated by SA would have had to amend their own constitution

to move back the election date as it was a constitutional hard deadline within which

they had to work. Moreover, according to the reason the nomination

papers were not available as stipulated by the Bylaws was because the court was not on

their game. Furthermore, when asked why didnt hold them

responsible, stated that with the separation of powers within SA, we stay out of the

courts business.

An opposing perspective regarding the accountability for oversight within SA was

mentioned by when asked why nomination papers werent out in the

timeframe stipulated by the Bylaws: Oversight should be the senate . . . they should

have asked why werent these papers done. It didnt happen.

Lastly, through the interview of , the question was posed to as to

whether or not felt the election was a fair process given the infraction of not

following stipulated Bylaws. response was no. More specifically, stated that

inclusivity is something that is preached, but not practiced. further stated that I

believe it does not lend itself to the democratic process to have one party on a ballot at

the arbitrary exclusion of one or more other parties.

otold the Investigating Team that this did not occur

because did not have the time to do it this year.

o Article 2, Section D. iii. states The Commission shall, after successfully receiving therequired validated signatures, place all qualified candidate names in full, according to theoffice sought, on the online ballot. This clause is thus in conflict with the interpretation

of any other section which would remove a candidate who had the required signatures.

o Article IV, Section 1.C. states that The IEC shall facilitate at least one public and opendebate consisting of every presidential nominee whose signatures have been confirmed.

As signatures were confirmed, per the Bylaws, should have been

included in a debate. The section goes on to state that In the case that there is only one

presidential nominee a public forum will be facilitated with the date agreed by the IEC

and the nominee. No such public forum was sponsored by SA or the IEC. A forum was

sponsored by another entity and that event was disrupted by and

o Article IV, Section 3.F. states that Parties must be Registered Student Organizations.Without further clarification, it is reasonable to believe that this means registered solely

through the Student Involvement Center.

The People of Change party was denied a spot on the ballot in part because they had not beenapproved by the Student Association. This approval process was on the Senate agenda for the

February 17, 2013 meeting but the meeting did not achieve quorum. Given that

, the allegations that this was done purposely to deny the

recognition of People of Change seem plausible.


3/4


4/4

Lack of record-keeping and tracking of legislation has left many questions. The idea that proposed legislation is first passed through SORC seems an obstacle to fair and

open government. That body (appointed by the party in power) may simply choose to let

oppositional legislation die there. The legislation regarding

proposed by Senator is an example of such.

The section of the Bylaws relating to election violations prohibits very little and provides scantdirection to ensure a fair election free from undue influence. explained thehistory of this when said the old rules were:

something like 17 or 20 pages long with all these different rules. And if you notice now,

there arent any rules. The reason there arent any rules is because we had rules and those

rules were deliberately then used to kick people off the ballot. So we just got rid of the rules

so we couldnt have people just kicking people off the ballot. And then we have this

requirement we only have four things that you cant do. And then we have the requirement

of beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to prove that the party or the individual did this

beyond a reasonable doubt, which is really hard to prove unless you get a video of them

posting something up or of them doing something in violation of the four things.

informed the Investigating Team that legislation had been passed requiring anycommunication with the advisor to go through the Executive Committee. If true, this seems to bein direct conflict with the purposes of an advisor, as well as the expressed interest of some

students to have a closer and more involved relationship with the SA advisor.

Several students expressed concern with their perception that meetings with the Vice Chancellorhave been cancelled or ceased this semester. The Investigating Team is unclear as to how many

meetings have been scheduled and/or canceled. Nonetheless, it is clear that the interpretation of

this by SA members is, much like legislation prohibiting interaction with the SA advisor, an

impediment to healthy student-administration relationships.

Recommendations

Many of the issues presented to the Investigating Team lie outside of the narrow scope of theinvestigation into the election. However, it is recommended that further work be done with the

following:

o a common understanding of shared governanceo a shared understanding of the role of the SA Advisoro methods to make operations of the Student Association more transparento review of the ability of the current structure of the Student Association to police itself and

insure fair governance

o accountability for accurate records of Student Association actions and meetings

uwm sa election report redacted

Documents