For Immediate Release:

April 8, 2014

1,300+ UW-MILWAUKEE STUDENTS SIGN PETITION TO CHANCELLOR LOVELL IN SUPPORT OF TRUE SHARED GOVERNANCE; CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM HAPPENING NOW NUMBER OF UWM STUDENTS SUPPORTING NEW STUDENT ASSOCIATION REFERENDUM IS OVER 5 TIMES MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT SUPPORT THE ADMINISTRATIONS BOARD OF TRUSTEES; SHARED GOVERNANCE FIASCO CREATED BY UWM ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES
MILWAUKEE, WI: On April 4th, UWM students Samir Siddique, Taylor Scott, and Emma Borkowski hand
delivered 1300+ UWM student petition signatures to the office of outgoing UWM Chancellor Michael Lovell. The petition language called for a referendum on a new UWM Student Association Constitution. This new constitution, written by a collective of UWM students, seeks to replace the Board of Trustees Constitution that goes into effect May 1st after receiving the support of only 242 UWM students, and disenfranchising approximately 1500. On March 27th, the student organizers sent a letter of intent to Chancellor Lovell regarding the petitions, subsequent referendum, and organizing under Wis. Stat. 36.09(5), asking for access to equitable resources moving forward. Chancellor Lovells reply was dismissive and misinformed regarding the statutory rights of students. After a week of petitioning and gaining the support of over 1300 students, the student organizers delivered a response and the signatures to the Chancellors office. All relevant letters are attached hereto. The UWM Student Association Constitutional Referendum is going on right now and open to ALL UWM Students. The duration of the referendum is 12:00am 4/6/14 to 11:59pm 4/12/14. Public notices have been posted online and on public notice bulletin boards in the UWM Union. The extralegal UWM Board of Trustees d/b/a Student Association is moving forward with its elections April 15th-17th, notwithstanding the superior number of students organizing in opposition. If the new UWM Student Association Constitution passes then a two week period will start for nominations/campaigning for legitimate UWM Student Association representatives per the new constitution, with elections slated to occur April 29-May 1st. The larger concern is that if Chancellor Lovell refuses to recognize that the students have organized under a new system, there will be two Student Associations at UWM one with access to student segregated fees and other university resources such as office space, but with only the support of 242 students; and another with the support of 1300+ students, but with no access to university resources. We hope that in good faith, and in support of the concept of shared governance, outgoing Chancellor Lovell accepts the organizing of the students so that students have a legitimate, elected voice and so all shared governance groups at UWM can work as equal partners to forward the collective goals of the institution.

-To see ASAP member Taylor Scotts statement on Lovells departure, go HERE.

PAGE | 1

For Immediate Release:

CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM HAPPENING NOW

April 8, 2014

1,300+ UW-MILWAUKEE STUDENTS SIGN PETITION TO CHANCELLOR LOVELL IN SUPPORT OF TRUE SHARED GOVERNANCE;

A summary of the concept of shared governance can be found at: http://asap-4-uwm.tumblr.com/sharedgovernance

Previous press releases regarding the ongoing issues at UWM can be found HERE.

An explanation of recent concerning events regarding shared governance at UWM can be found at: http://asap-4-uwm.tumblr.com/yourvoice and HERE in an open appeal for action.

For any further information please contact ASAP at asap4uwm@gmail.com

### The ALLIANCE OF STUDENTS ACHIEVING PROGRESS (ASAP) is a movement, currently active in the UW-Milwaukee campus community. ASAP has had a long history as a party in UW-Milwaukee Student Association Elections and in student advocacy for 20+ years. Previously known as Achieving Student Action through Progress, the name may change but our progressive values and integrity in student and shared governance advocacy will not. We remain a united movement of like-minded individuals standing up to ensure everyone has a voice. We believe in a truly shared system where all governance groups under WI Stat. 36.09 work together to advance the goals of their respective Institution, the UW-System, higher education, and the Wisconsin Idea.

PAGE | 2

March 27, 2014 Chancellor Michael R. Lovell University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Chapman Hall 202 2310 E. Hartford Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53201 Cc: UWM Faculty Senate, UWM University Committee, UWM Academic Staff Senate, UWM Classified Staff Council

Dear Chancellor Lovell: The purpose of this correspondence is to express formal student concern regarding the lack of legitimate student shared governance at UWM and numerous issues surrounding the 2014 Student Association Constitution Referendum conducted by Student Association Professional Staff (SAPS) Director David Stockton and the Board of Trustees in the aftermath of your decision to not recognize the results of the Student Association 2013 -14 General Elections. On May 3, 2013, you asserted that while the UWM administration fully respects the students right to self govern under 36.09(5), we must also be certain that the Student Association, as the sole recognized representative for governance purposes of all UWM students, is, in fact, open and accessible to all UWM students such that official UWM recognition of it as the students sole representative is warranted. [Emphasis added] You have implemented this benchmark and rule for students to obtain what you call official UWM recognition by administration, regardless of whether this is necessary regarding the rights of students prescribed in statute. Moreover, you have determined that this criterion must be met with certainty in order for results to be considered valid and for recognition to be achieved. We reject this premise that the Chancellor of a UW Institution can decide whether or not to bestow University recognition to the elected officials of shared governance groups who have the statutory right to organize and select their representatives as they see fit. We request a thorough and credible investigation of the Board of Trustees January 2014 Student Association Constitution Referendum to determine whether this referendum was conducted in a fair, open, and accessible manner consistent with the principles and standards you set forth to establish whether results should be considered "valid, for reasons discussed below. We also call for an immediate investigation into allegations of UWM administrations involvement in minimizing and excluding certain students or groups of students from participating in student shared governance at UWM; in particular, those comments made by, and the conduct of, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Michael Laliberte more-than-suggesting extralegal undue administrative influence in shared governance, specifically student shared governance. This 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

1|Page

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. Furthermore, we call for an immediate investigation into the allegations that Administration, upon information and belief, extralegally changed, without notice or ability to appeal, Student Association final allocations of allocable segregated university fees (SUF) before transmitting them to the UW-System Board of Regents. Such 2013-14 fiscal year allocations being for the Student Association Professional Staff Office, which the Student Association decided not to fund, and full-time UWM students are now paying $5.30 a semester for regardless of that determination. Further, we request that this investigation look into Student Association Professional Staff (SAPS) Director David Stockton and his role in extralegal undue administrative influence in shared governance, and in particular allegations that Mr. Stockton seemingly modified Student Association Election Party Registration Forms prior to the Spring 2013 election that you chose to not recognize. In your abovementioned letter, you expressed concern for the "fundamental fairness" of student processes as it relates to adhering to what is outlined in governing documents. The University Student Court is and remains bound by its bylaws and more importantly the constitution, a legal contract as prescribed by the students of UWM. We are troubled to hear that there has been an unprecedented disregard for the rules as this goes against the very standard you set forth for achieving administrative recognition. The University Student Court, in collusion with UWM Administration, has gone as far as creating a fictitious court case and "indefinitely suspending" the Student Association Constitution without authority to do so. These actions weaken the very foundation of student organization at UWM and call into question the legitimacy of the "new structure". We are troubled to hear of issues regarding the ability of all students to participate in the formulation, review and approval of the "new constitution". The ability of outside students to participate was marginalized due to a lack of transparency, openness, accessibility, fundamental fairness and integrity in the process. The "new constitution" was created over the past 7 months and brought forth by the Board of Trustees under the guidance and significant involvement of Student Affairs/SAPS staff without any real consideration for, or meaningful input from, the students of UWM. The UWM student body first learned of a new constitution and structure on January 13, 2014 and was given more or less a week to review and become familiarized with a completely new structure. In fact, the content of the constitution draft changed shortly before the referendum without general notice to students. This "new constitution" was advertised with deceptive messaging, such as SA is now "more open and accessible to all students," yet many students will not qualify to participate under the new structure. The eligibility requirements present in this "new constitution" will undoubtedly prevent a very large amount of students from having the ability to hold an official position or even serve on a university committee. Moreover, the Board of Trustees/SAPS disenfranchised students by releasing this information over winter break and during the Spring student enrollment and registration period. There were issues with the Board of Trustees/SAPS not following their own referendum timeline and ballots being issued late. This created a situation where the ability of students to participate in the referendum was lessened under false pretenses further marginalizing voter turnout.

2|Page

During the referendum, 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, appears to cede or lessen 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. Only 242 students voted for the new constitution, and yet you still signed it last month. And it will putatively go into effect May 1st. Also, due to the curious timing of the constitutional referendum before the end of enrollment on February nd 3rd, with the discrepancy in enrollment between 24,298 on January 22 , when the referendum started rd and ballots were sent out and enrollment being 25,781 on February 3 , 1483 students were apparently disenfranchised of their right to vote that would have been able to vote had the referendum been held less than two weeks later. Two of us writing this letter to you declare that we believe that we were unlawfully disenfranchised. Taylor Scott was disenfranchised and unable to vote against the referendum, even though Taylor was an admitted student that had not yet registered for classes because the referendum was held before the end of enrollment. Emma Borkowski was an intending and registered student that enrolled in classes during the referendum and was not able to vote. So we ask that you investigate why almost 1500 students were disenfranchised and how you can officially stand behind a new system and structure that less than 1% of students support? These results speak volumes to the many issues surrounding the referendum specifically regarding the ability of all students to participate. This calls into question whether these results are reflective of true UWM student consensus or if anyone could be certain, much less confident, of the legitimacy of the result. It is apparent that these results are in stark contrast to the voter turnout of the last several matters brought forth to UWM students for their consideration in referendum (i.e., last years Union referendum with 4002 votes and 14.6% turnout and the 2013-14 SA elections that you decided to not-recognize that had a turnout of 12.91%) which suggests that the UWM student body actually rejected this referendum. In light of all of this, we strongly urge, in addition to investigations, that all UWM Student Affairs staff and administrators receive remedial training so they can fully grasp state law as it pertains to shared governance in Wisconsin so that student shared governance can be legitimately re-established and respected by staff and administrators at UWM. 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? 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. 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

3|Page

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 Administration, students want to work together collaboratively with them and the other shared governance groups to further the collective goals of the institution. But unfortunately, it feels as if yourself and others in Administration don't believe that students should have a true, legitimate, and meaningful stake in the future of UWM. This is evidenced by the words and actions of yourself and your colleagues over the past year.

Finally, we would like to formally announce our intent to organize the students of UWM legitimately under Wis. Stat. 36.09(5) as strong partners in the shared governance concept at UWM. The approval threshold of over 242 students seems to be what is necessary to propose a more legitimate constitution than the Board of Trustees constitution, and one that more students will have organized under; although our goal is to petition for at least the historical custom of 5% of UWM students in support of a new Student Association Constitution over the next week. In order to give you more than adequate time to prepare, we are formally requesting the use of electronic resources at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to conduct an online all-student petition referendum over UWMs Web-based Survey Instrument (Qualtrics) and via Pantherlink. The purpose of our petition and subsequent referendum is to organize legitimate student representation at UWM as is the right of the students pursuant to Wisconsin State Statue 36.09(5). We have attached the electronic ballot we are requesting to be sent to the student body on April 6, 2014/12:00am and to be resent to each student daily who has not participated until the end duration of the petition period on April 12, 2014/11:59pm. This duration mirrors the duration of the previous referendum. We are requesting as students and organizers that we be allowed to serve as observers and have access to the live-results of the poll at all times to ensure the integrity of the results. Historically, this function has been achieved in conjunction with either the Dean of Students Office (Tom McGinnity) or more recently SAPS Director David Stockton. However due to a conflict of interest with the Division of Student Affairs and concerns about the SAPS office, we request that a special interim election commission consisting of UWM Academic Staff member and Senior Lecturer of Computer Science Paul McNally is appointed to oversee and administer the constitutional referendum and initial elections for all generally elected Student Association officers. Mr. McNally has previously impartially overseen Student Association elections and we, as students, feel he will independently and impartially uphold the tenants of a legitimate and fair election. Lastly, we expect to be given the opportunity to use and access electronic and online resources like other groups and associations of students on campus, in particular the resources the Board of Trustees were given to hold their referendum. In fairness we expect to be afforded these same rights and without any undue interference. We look forward to a prompt response from you and look forward to polling the student body in the interest of legitimate shared governance at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Sincerely,

_______________________________ Taylor Q. Scott tqscott@uwm.edu

_______________________________ Leyton E. Schiebel leyton@uwm.edu _______________________________ Emma J. Borkowski borkow26@uwm.edu

_______________________________ M. Samir Siddique siddique@uwm.edu

4|Page

4/8/2014

pantherLINK

pantherLINK

tqscott@uwm.edu

Re: Official Notice of Intent/Formal Concerns Regarding Shared Governance

From : Michael Lovell <mlovell@uwm.edu> Subject : Re: Official Notice of Intent/Formal Concerns Regarding Shared Governance To : Taylor Q. Scott <tqscott@uwm.edu>, leyton@uwm.edu, siddique@uwm.edu, borkow26@gmail.com T a y l o r ,S a m i r ,L e y t o n ,a n dE m m a :

Tue, Apr 01, 2014 07:21 PM

Ih a v er e v i e w e dy o u rl e t t e r ,a n dIh a v ei n q u i r e da st ot h e a l l e g a t i o n sc o n t a i n e di ni t .I na d d i t i o n ,Ih a v eb e e nk e p t i n f o r m e do ft h eS t u d e n tB o a r do fT r u s t e e s 'p r o g r e s st o w a r d r e f o r m i n gt h eU W Ms t u d e n tg o v e r n m e n ta si th a sp r o g r e s s e d .B a s e d o na l lo ft h i si n f o r m a t i o n ,Ia ms a t i s f i e dt h a tt h er e f e r e n d u m w a sc o n d u c t e di naf a i rf a s h i o na n dt h a tt h er e s u l t sa r e l e g i t i m a t e .W h i l eg r e a t e rs t u d e n tp a r t i c i p a t i o nw o u l dh a v eb e e n i d e a l ,w ec a n n o ti g n o r et h ev o t e so ft h es t u d e n t sw h o p a r t i c i p a t e di nt h ep r o c e s sb e c a u s et h e i rf e l l o ws t u d e n t so p t e d n o tt ov o t e . I fy o uw i s ht ob ei n v o l v e di ns t u d e n tg o v e r n m e n t ,Iw o u l du r g e y o ut of o l l o wt h ep r o c e s s e se s t a b l i s h e df o rs u c hp a r t i c i p a t i o n . C h a n c e l l o rL o v e l l -O r i g i n a lM e s s a g eF r o m :" T a y l o rQ .S c o t t "< t q s c o t t @ u w m . e d u > T o :m l o v e l l @ u w m . e d u C c :" E l i z a b e t hS c h i e b e l ,L e y t o n "< l e y t o n @ u w m . e d u > ," E m m a B o r k o w s k i "< b o r k o w 2 6 @ g m a i l . c o m > ," M o h a m m a dS i d d i q u e " < s i d d i q u e @ u w m . e d u > ," f a cs e n a t e "< f a c _ s e n a t e @ u w m . e d u > , u c @ u w m . e d u ,a s c o m m @ u w m . e d u ,a s s e n a t e @ u w m . e d u ,u w m c s a c @ u w m . e d u , m a c a t c k @ u w m . e d u S e n t :T h u r s d a y ,M a r c h2 7 ,2 0 1 47 : 1 3 : 0 7A M S u b j e c t :O f f i c i a lN o t i c eo fI n t e n t / F o r m a lC o n c e r n sR e g a r d i n g S h a r e dG o v e r n a n c e

3 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 4
https://pantherlink.uwm.edu/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=519525&xim=1 1/2

4/8/2014

pantherLINK

C h a n c e l l o rL o v e l l ,

P l e a s es e et h ea t t a c h e dl e t t e rr e g a r d i n gs t u d e n tc o n c e r n sa b o u t s h a r e dg o v e r n a n c ea tU W M . P l e a s en o t et h a tt h el e t t e ri st i m es e n s i t i v e .W el o o kf o r w a r dt o y o u rr e s p o n s e . B e s t ,

T a y l o rQ .S c o t t L e y t o nE .S c h i e b e l M .S a m i rS i d d i q u e E m m aJ .B o r k o w s k i

https://pantherlink.uwm.edu/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=519525&xim=1

2/2

Dear Chancellor Lovell: Thank you for your message of 7:21 p.m., April 1, in which you acknowledge receipt of our March 27 letter. We are disappointed, however, with the evasive tone of your reply. Since you purport to have reviewed that letter, we would have anticipated a much more direct response to our particular requests. For example, we asked that several matters be investigated. You respond that you have personally inquired regarding these topics, and that you are satisfied that the referendum was fair and legitimate. We take your lack of direct response and purported satisfaction as an indication that you feel any further investigation would be pointless from your perspective as you have already made up your mind. It should be apparent, however, that a full investigation would serve other legitimate purposes aside from your own personal satisfaction. If we have misunderstood your response, or if you reconsider it, please promptly let us know. Because of the importance of making a clear record, we suggest that you use words such as, yes, I will direct an investigation as to each matter. We thank you in advance for your anticipated clarity. Regarding the use of university resources to conduct a referendum, your response is: indirect at best or pointlessly obfuscatory at worst. Since you have not provided any details concerning access to these resource (those requested in our prior email), we again interpret your answer as a no, and request clarification if this is not the case, or reconsideration if it is. We write on behalf of the student body and particularly for hundreds of students who have rejected the illegitimate student government you now recognize. We will present you shortly with a set of their petitions with enough signatures to establish us as the student government, under which the most UWM students have organized. We thus have the right to demand this resource. Even if we did not, there is no principled reason that we understand or that you have expressed why any constellation of students engaged in the process of organizing themselves under Wis. Stat. 36.09(5) could be legally subject to interference from the university administration in the use of these resources. The last two sentences of your letter, Im sure you must realize, are deeply insulting and provocative to us and to all students of UWM. We realize our conflicting positions will not be settled by letter, but we do think it is best to record at least some of our objections. You know that we have come to this point by virtue of your personally refusing to recognize a student government election ignoring the votes of the students who participated in the process as you now say you cannot do, and then meddling to put in place an extralegal student government unsupported by any legal process beyond a chief justice giving himself the authority (in collusion with Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Michael Laliberte) to suspend all student law and rule by decree. May we further add that State law places no restrictions on our rights to organize ourselves as students, and it prohibits you from proscribing or prescribing process(es). The intervention of your administration precipitated a crisis that has left completely unclear what process you claim exists, and it appears to us that your vague reference to such a process is intentionally slippery so you can make a post hoc decision regarding what process we were supposed to follow.

1|Page

Having the requisite support of the students, we look forward to polling student body in a referendum our proposed Constitution, via an all school email from April 6th12th to gain a legitimate understanding of the system in which students would like to be represented. Again, as the unincorporated association of students that the most UWM students have organized under, we reiterate our request for the resources to hold such a referendum or that you give the Independent Election Commissioner access to the necessary resources in order to send the referendum ballot to students, and administer/oversee such results. Again, we interpret your answer from your reply as a no, and request clarification if this is not the case, or reconsideration if it is. There is nothing to be lost by holding a referendum of the students, other than perhaps your administrations undue influence over a small group of sanctioned and misinformed students who purport to control over $20,000,000 of student fees; those segregated fees of which the disbursement, allocation, disposition, and fate is statutorily delegated as the primary responsibility of the UWM student body. Moreover, there is much to be gained by a legitimate referendum in which all students are actually able to vote, without fear of being disenfranchised. Due to the time sensitive nature of our request, and our ample notice giving you more than a week to prepare, there is no reason as to why our request should be denied; further, such denial would certainly be seen as extralegal interference. We look forward to a prompt response. Sincerely,

_______________________________ Taylor Q. Scott tqscott@uwm.edu

_______________________________ Leyton E. Schiebel leyton@uwm.edu

_______________________________ M. Samir Siddique siddique@uwm.edu

_______________________________ Emma J. Borkowski borkow26@uwm.edu

2|Page