APPEAL FOR ACTION

To Whom It May Concern, I would like to address ongoing issues in shared governance at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee (UWM). Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5) states: The students of each institution or campus subject to the responsibilities and powers of the board, the president, the chancellor and the faculty shall be active participants in the immediate governance of and policy development for such institutions. As such, students shall have primary responsibility for the formulation and review of policies concerning student life, services and interests. Students in consultation with the chancellor and

subject to the final confirmation of the board shall have the responsibility for the disposition of those student fees which constitute substantial support for campus student activities. The students of each institution or campus shall have the right
to organize themselves in a manner they determine and to select their representatives to participate in institutional governance. [emphasis added] Im not sure if youre familiar with the events that have been happening at UWM in the past year, but if you are its likely youve noticed that the elected UWM Student Association Senate this past academic year has been forcibly replaced by an appointed Board of Trustees d/b/a UWM Student Association. This decision was made seemingly extralegally by the UWM Chancellor and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and by the University Student Court (beyond its authority in the UWM Student Association Constitution) after UWM students elected their representatives with what is believed to be record voter turnout last April. Since then weve seen previous responsible funding allocations made by students seemingly extralegally changed by Administration. Currently, UWM students are paying over $1200, in addition to their tuition, in segregated fees this academic year without legitimate representation. Recently, many UWM students got an email urging them to Vote Yes! Onwards and Upwards! on a new Student Association Constitution that many had heard of for the first time. This Constitution, seemingly written largely by Administration, cedes many of their statutory rights as students under Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5). For the constitutional referendum, 24,298 ballots were sent out by the Board of Trustees/Administration, only 301 students voted, and only 242 voted yes less than 1% of the UWM student population. Also, due to the curious timing of the constitutional referendum before the end of enrollment on February 3rd, 1483 students were disenfranchised of their right to vote that would have been able to vote had the referendum been held less than two weeks later. Only 242 students voted for the new Administration-friendly Student Association Constitution, and yet the Chancellor still signed it last month. It will go into effect May 1st. I would like to offer a bit more background on events leading up to these actions by UWM Administration. Over the last academic year, the students at UWM had been reasserting statutory rights that had been 1|Page

ignored or slowly ceded to Administration over the years. They decided to formally implement Wis. State Stat. 36.09(5) into shared governance at UWM. The end goal was to work with the other shared governance groups on campus to create a collaborative and efficient implementation plan of Wis. State. Stat. 36.09. Throughout this process Administration and the Division of Student Affairs became increasingly involved in the operations of the Student Association, to the point of interference. Administration and the Division of Student Affairs empowered an office that was meant to be professional support staff into an office that interfered with the day-to-day operations of the Student Association. This office, the Student Association Professional Staff (SAPS) office, several times last academic year tried to enforce their own written policy into the daily-workings of the Student Association. Additionally, SAPS holds the signature authority for the Student Association (including paychecks, etc.). And during the 2013-2014 Student Association Elections (that were later not-recognized by Administration) it became known to the Student Association Independent Elections Commission (IEC) Chair that SAPS Director David Stockton had seemingly modified the elections party registration forms. After this action and a subsequent review of: performance, program need, and UW Board of Regents Administrative Policy that stated that the office could not be funded in allocable segregated fees the way it was structured within the University (as a division of the Dean of Students Office); the Student Association unanimously agreed to defund the office in the next academic year. In the ensuing non-recognition of the Student Association elections, this allocation decision was ignored and the SAPS office was fully funded. Also during this time, the Administration had a substantial interest in moving forward with a new Student Union building project, to be funded by the students through segregated fees. After research, the Student Association and Union Policy Board decided on a collaborative student-driven approach that was similar to the process commonly followed at other schools, including the recent Union South project at UWMadison. This approach was ignored and the Administration decided to move forward unilaterally with their own process. After it became evident that the shared governance climate, largely due to control over segregated fees, wasnt currently able to handle a collaborative new Student Union building project, on April 14, 2013 the Student Association unanimously took a stance: [The UWM Student Association takes] a formal stance against the building of a new student union specifically due to the negative shared governance climate and the inability to have a collaborative student driven student union building project at this time. If the Shared Governance climate were to improve, the Student Association would be in support of a New Student Union. A month later the Administration decided to not-recognize the Student Association elections. Do the students of UWM deserve a new Student Union? Yes. Will UWM students be served by paying for a structure that the UWM Administration has seemingly unilateral say over? No. There have been reports from multiple sources that the UWM Student Union is the most trafficked building in the State of Wisconsin. While we cant confirm this, for this building project to not be representative of all stakeholders at the University, and especially the students who will be paying for it, is inexcusable. Also during this time, UWM Chancellor Michael Lovell and UWM Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Michael Laliberte were recorded making troubling statements about students and their involvement in the campus community and in the decision making process. Such as when Chancellor Lovell suggests (20:44) they find a way to minimize the involvement of certain students. Later, Vice Chancellor Laliberte makes a statement (22:00) saying certain students arent welcome at the table and admits his concern that students 2|Page

may try to challenge the actions of Administration, saying (33:37): What do you do, what do yall do, with the people you dont want? Who want to fight? ... who want to say, The Administration is trying to screw us over and and... continuing (35:05), At what point do you cut some of these people off? Vice Chancellor Laliberte also suggests (25:30) that the current (at the time) student government should just go along with Administration and appoint a new Student Association President, irrespective of elections. This type of suggestive interference, among the other issues stated here, is exactly what was discussed in the Wisconsin State Supreme Court Case Student Association of U.W.-Milwaukee v. Baum, 74 Wis. 2d 283, 246 N.W.2d 622 (1976). It states, in relevant part: If the right to organize and to select representatives is seen as two distinct rights without an integral relationship to each other, the possible effect could be the negation of one of these rights. For example, if a chancellor retains the right to dictate students shall be selected by election with two from this organization and one or two from other organizations, or persons with special interests, as was done here, the right to organize becomes meaningless. While students retain their right to organize, the administration can thwart the authority of the organization and deal with other students more to its liking. It can deal with two students from the dorms, two from publications, and others. This may be much easier. While those motives are not present in this case, an interpretation which does not recognize the right to organize and select representatives as integrally related could result in such a situation in the future. In addition, if the chancellor retains the power to direct, students shall be elected from some organization or another, does he not

also have the power to say a particular committee requires that students be in the upper ten percent of their academic class. And if this power is present, the
students right to select their representatives could be only an illusion. If the students right to organize themselves and select their representatives is viewed as two different rights, the purpose of the statute may not be carried out. In order to give effect to the legislative intent of this section, the right to organize and select representatives must be seen as one right, which must be free of administrative interference if it is, in reality, to be a right. [emphasis added] Among other issues, we have concerns about the long-term effects of students being shut-out of the decision-making process. UWM has retention rate issues and has issues engaging its Alumni already, so what are the long-term effects of not giving students a stake, a sense of ownership, in the future of their University? A true say over the fees they pay? What are the long-term effects to the concept of shared governance and the productive partnership the students should have with administration and other shared governance groups? This climate that eschews a diversity of ideas and that ensures most students dont have a stake in their own campus community is a dangerous one and a slippery slope in the long-term. Its a danger noted by Chad Alan Goldberg, University of Wisconsin - Madison Professor of Sociology, as he examines similar circumstances when, students in this instance, dont feel as if they have a stake or voice in their campus community: Alexis de Tocqueville called individualism: the tendency that disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. 3|Page

Why is individualism a problem? Because the alternative [to shared governance in this instance], as Tocqueville pointed out, is guardianship and tutelage [by Institutional Administration]. Bad guardians use their power to make decisions with which citizens may not agree and which may even be detrimental to their interests. But even in the best case, when benevolent guardians have our best interests at heart, guardianship gradually degrades our capacities to think, feel, and act for ourselves in matters that affect us and for which we have a legal responsibility. Administration needs to respect students statutory rights. Students don't want to work against UWM Chancellor Michael Lovell and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Michael Laliberte, students want to work together collaboratively with them and the other shared governance groups to further the collective goals of the institution. But unfortunately, those in Administration don't believe that students should have a true stake in the future of UWM. This is evidenced by their words and actions over the past year. Many times the incentive to undermine the statutory rights of students seems to be the student segregated fee allocations process and the UW Board of Regents-created allocable v. non-allocable fees that is not present in law and arguably was promulgated in violation of Wis. Stat. 36.09(5). According to statute students have the right to allocate/approve all student fees, not just allocable segregated fees. We need to ensure that theres transparency in the student segregated university fees allocation proces s and that students have time to address any concerns at the institutional level before the allocations are passed on to the UW Board of Regents, to ensure that the fees are being allocated responsibly. To ensure UWM students retain their rights under Wisconsin State Statute 36.09(5), we, as students, need to come together and organize to reassert those rights. We must ensure that UWM students, have a legitimate elected voice, have a say in the allocation of our student dollars, and have a stake in the future of our university. This can be done in three steps: Education, Information, and Organization. Together we can get legitimate input on how students believe the Student Association should look and should function and then engage with students and help them organize. We are doing this because we want every UWM student to feel as if they have a legitimate stake in the future of their university. Sincerely, The Alliance of Students Achieving Progress (ASAP) for the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee (UWM)

4|Page