From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

Contention of Facts related to UW-Whitewater Investigation

The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 1.0 Independent Election Commission (IEC) Bylaws are not clear and do not provide adequate instruction on how individual students can run for office.

The Student Association refutes this to be fact. The Investigative Team does not specify what adequate instruction has not been provided. The IEC Bylaws outline how individual students may run for office as a party, as an independent or as a write-in. The Bylaws also make clear election procedures, timelines and candidate regulations for office. The IEC Bylaws1 state the following: ARTICLE IV Student Association Elections Procedure Section 2 - Timeline A. Student Association Elections will be held the second consecutive Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of April. Online polling will open at 12:01am on Tuesday, and will conclude at 11:59pm on Thursday. The Commission shall announce elections results within 24 hours of polls closing. B. Signature sheets will be made available by Noon the second Monday in February and due by 5:00pm the first Monday in March. C. All senatorial candidate signature sheets that are turned in with a party association must have the signature of the person who filled out and turned in the party registration form, in order to be listed as a candidate on the ballot as a member of that party. D. Individuals whose signatures are verified will appear on the ballot. Individuals who indicate a party affiliation will appear on that ballot only with that party affiliation. To be eligible to be placed on the ballot, candidates seeking the office of President of the Student Association must have served in an elected or appointed position within the Student Association or at least six months prior to the Student Association elections. E. From the date in which nomination papers are due, there shall be a one week period for validation of signatures. F. After this one week period, the Commission shall post a list of all candidates that obtained the requisite number of valid signatures online and via all student electronic mail. The Commission shall then contact each candidate to verify their campaign statement. Section 3 - Parties
1

Refer to Appendix 1: Independent Election Commission (IEC) Bylaws

Page 1 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

A. Party Registration forms shall be due by Noon on the second Monday of February. Party registration forms must be filled out and turned into the Commission by the individual seeking the office of President within that party. B. No party shall be eligible for election without a President and Vice Presidential Ticket submitting all required paperwork. C. Parties shall be listed on the ballot alphabetically. D. Parties shall not run more candidates than there are available seats in each school. E. Every candidate in a party is responsible for their own signature sheets. F. Parties must be Registered Student Organizations. G. No student may run under more than one party ARTICLE V - Candidate Regulations Section 1 - Membership A. Candidates seeking office must be members of the Student Association. B. No member of the Student Association Judicial Branch or Independent Election Commission can, while in office, run for election. Section 2 - Signatures A. 450 validated signatures shall be required to be on the ballot for the President/Vice Presidential ticket. B. 50 validated signatures shall be required to be on the ballot for an At Large Senate or Letters and Science seat. C. 25 validated signatures shall be required to be on the ballot for any other school or college Senate seat. D. 10 validated signatures shall be required to be on the ballot for the School of Information Sciences. Section 3 - Write-In Candidates

Page 2 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

Write in candidates must receive at least the number of votes equivalent to the signatures required to run for their school. Section 4 - Party Affiliation Candidates who do not identify with a party when their signature sheets are turned in shall be listed on the ballot as independents. The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 2.0 IEC Bylaws were not followed during the 2013 election. Given that the Preamble of the SA Constitution2 includes among its purposes to ensure participation in student governance these infractions are all-the-more problematic. Concerns and inconsistencies include: a. Article 1 Section 2.B. requires that Party Registration Forms be made available by the last date of final exams during the fall semester. This did not happen and the nomination papers were not available until February12, 2013. b. The Bylaws state that the party registration forms are due by noon on the second Monday of February, which would have been February 11, 2013. However, they were not even available by that date. The papers were made available on February 12, 2013 and were subsequently due on February 18, 2013. Consequently, what would have been a 52-day period between the two dates became a six-day period. The Student Association does not dispute that the timeline portion of the IEC Bylaws was not followed, in part, and would like to explain the events surrounding this, as an explanation was not encompassed in the report. The Independent Election Commission encountered challenges adhering to the timeline set forth in the IEC Bylaws. The Chief Justice (at the time) did not appoint a Justice to the Commission, meet the Commission, nor release the Party Registration Forms during finals via the Commission. The Chief Justice graduated from UWM at the end of the fall semester, thus vacating said position without notice or formal resignation to the Student Association. The President first learned of this issue on January 31st. The Chief of Staff immediately met with the acting Chief Justice (at the time) to ensure action was being pursued to meet the Commission and make available all forms to get the election back on track. This issue was a result of a lack of training and direction coupled by frequent turnover, further magnified by timing (e.g., final exams, winter break), lack of communication and an advisor. The IEC moved to remedy the situation by adjusting the timeline3 and releasing the forms to ensure the election took place in April per the

2 3

Refer to Appendix 2: Student Association Constitution http://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Elections

Page 3 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

Constitution. This adjusted timeline attempted to provide a remedy for the identified issue, while still meeting the Constitutional requirement of holding the election in April. c. People of Change party made several requests for the nomination papers from [redacted] but never received the papers nor a response from [redacted] Article II Composition, Duties, and Powers of the Commission, Section 2 Duties, B. state: The Commission shall be responsible for making available all necessary forms. The Commission never received a request, and the Investigative Team provided no such record of any request in the report. Additionally, any and all nomination papers were provided to the student body online at: (http://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Elections). d. 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. [emphasis added] The Investigative Team makes a counterfactual argument. The basis of this concern is an assumption, by the investigators own admission, and demonstrates a general lack of knowledge about the process by which a party would register. Party Registration is multifaceted which requires both approval as an RSO by the University and SA Senate4 and subsequent registration as a party with the IEC. The registration with the IEC, which was completed by two presumptive parties, is merely paperwork which could be filed up until the very last second before the due date. The papers for both presumptive parties were turned in on time. The investigation, by assuming, fails to take into account that groups of students could have gained RSO status far in advance of any given deadline for the election, regardless of the delay in IEC Party Registration Forms. It is interesting, to say the least, that this investigation delves into assumptions of fact but neglects to incorporate more than one logical assumption or a clear understanding of the issue under investigation. Moreover, the assertion that the 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, fails to address a main point of the investigation which is that the process was off timeline. This seems to suggest that while it isnt acceptable to deviate from the timeline, it would have been acceptable if it would have allowed People of Change to participate as a party. Furthermore, the suggestion that the entire process should have been backed up for a comparable amount of time would ultimately violate the Constitution by not holding the election in April and place the election in July.

Refer to Appendix 3: UWM Center for Student Involvement Student Organization Manual

Page 4 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

However as stated by [redacted] SA would have to 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. This is substantially true. Article VII Elections, Section 4 Date of Elections state: Student Association Elections shall be held in April as outlined by the IEC By-Laws.5 Moreover, according to [redacted] 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 [redacted] didnt hold them responsible, [redacted] 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 [redacted] when asked why nomination papers werent out in the timeframe stipulated by the Bylaws: Oversight should be the senatethey should have asked why werent these papers done. It didnt happen. [Emphasis added] These are not facts, rather perception of the events. It is important to note, the Investigative Team did not provide the perspective of all those interviewed in the report for consideration. Once the Executive branch learned the papers were not released by the IEC, the Chief of Staff met with the then acting Chief Justice to ensure immediate action was being pursued to make available all forms. The IEC adjusted the timeline to remedy the situation and ensure the elections took place in accordance with the Constitution. The IEC remedied the situation before the ensuing Senate session on January 27th. Lastly, through the interview of [redacted], the question was posed to [redacted] as to whether or not [redacted] felt the election was a fair process given the infraction of not following stipulated Bylaws. [redacted] response was no. More specifically, [redacted] stated that inclusivity is something that is preached, but not practiced. [redacted] further stated that I believe it does not lend itself to the democratic process to have one party on the ballot at the arbitrary exclusion of one or more other parties. [Emphasis added] These statements are subjective. At no point in the process was any party arbitrarily excluded, nor has the Investigative Team provided evidence as such in the report. e. [redacted] told the Investigating Team that this did not occur because [redacted] did not have the time to do it this year. This is too heavily redacted to determine what exactly is of concern.
5

Appendix 1

Page 5 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

f.

Article 2, Section D. iii [of the IEC Bylaws] states The commission shall, after successfully receiving the required validated signatures, place all qualified candidate names in full, according to the office 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. [Emphasis added]

The Investigative Team does not take into account what it means to be a qualified candidate. The Investigative Team interprets that having the required validated signatures is the only criteria for being a qualified candidate. Becoming a qualified candidate is a process that includes being in compliance with all requirements set forth in the IEC Bylaws. Additionally, a candidate may be removed after being placed on the ballot. This process is outlined in Article VI Election Violations of the IEC Bylaws6. g. Article IV, Section 1. C. [of the IEC Bylaws] states that The IEC shall facilitate at least one public and open debate consisting of every presidential nominee whose signatures have been confirmed. As [redacted] signatures were confirmed, per the Bylaws, [redacted] should have been included in the 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 [redacted] and [redacted]. [Emphasis added] This explanation is inaccurate. An initial forum scheduled for March 27th was cancelled due to insufficient notice to candidates and poor attendance. The IEC had no involvement in or knowledge of this forum. Another forum was scheduled for and held on April 4th. The IEC was in communication with the aforementioned entity, the University Activities Board, regarding the public forum on April 4th. The IEC was in attendance to oversee the debate. Nowhere in the Bylaws does it state the debate must be sponsored by SA or the IEC. Sponsored is fundamentally different than facilitated. Furthermore, the Student Association does not have any knowledge of a disruption nor has the Investigative Team provided any evidence that a disruption took place in their report. h. Article IV, Section 3.F. [of the IEC Bylaws] states that Parties must be Registered Student Organizations. Without further clarification, it is reasonable to believe this means registered solely through the [Center for Student Involvement]. [Emphasis added] This explanation is inaccurate. University registration performed through the Center for Student Involvement (CSI) is multifaceted. The student organization must fulfill the ten criteria for
6

Appendix 1

Page 6 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

University registration under REGISTRATION PROCEDURES (RECOGNITION PROCEDURES) as outlined in the Center for Student Involvement Student Organization Manual7. Registered Student Organizations (RSO) are to have read and understood these processes and go through comprehensive training via CSI, in becoming a RSO. One criterion is as follows, The organizations documents are then forwarded to the Student Association (SA) Senate for review and approval of eligibility to received [sic] SA services. (http://www4.uwm.edu/sao/publications/manuals/2012_Stu_Org_Manual_May.pdf) page 14-15 of the Student Organization Manual states: STUDENT ASSOCIATION ELIGIBILITY The Student Association (SA) is the official campus-wide governing body for UWM students. Student organizations shall not violate the Student Association Constitution or legislation enacted by the Student Association within the scope of its authority. The Student Association must approve a student organizations eligibility before the organization will be qualified to receive segregated university fees, apply for Union office space, or participate in Student Association Elections. Student Organizations applying for eligibility must agree to abide by the Student Association governing documents. Student Organizations must register with the University prior to applying for eligibility with the Student Association. Groups must apply for Student Association eligibility each year. [Emphasis added] Both parties (ASV and POC) submitted their RSO charters to be placed on the SA Senate agenda for approval. The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 3.0 The People of Change party was denied a spot on the ballot in part because they had not been approved 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 [redacted], the allegations that this was done purposely to deny the recognition of People of Change seem plausible. [Emphasis added]

This is an assumption not a fact. The meeting in question, February 17th, was not originally part of the Senate Term Calendar, which was set in June of 2012. The meeting in question was added to the term calendar at the February 10th Senate session to take up financial matters by happenstance. This proposed special session ultimately did not make quorum. However, Student organization registration can be started at any time through the Center for Student Involvement, completely separate from the Student Association. The registration for People of Change (POC) was not done until the last minute. By chance, a special meeting was added for February 17th but did not achieve

Appendix 3

Page 7 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

quorum. If the Senate had adhered to the original term calendar, POC, regardless, would not have been recognized by the SA in time for IEC registration as a party, because of POCs own deferment. The Student Association categorically denies purposely not achieving quorum. The Senate has failed to reach quorum on several occasions and this proposed special meeting (February 17th) was scheduled with the least amount of notice respectively. Plausibility should not be listed under facts; this appears to show a bias (suggesting nefarious intent) and the Investigative Team provided no evidence to support this claim. The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 4.0(a) Article IV, Section 2.D. of the IEC Bylaws was enforced during the elections, though the most current affirmed, signed and dated copy of the Bylaws does not contain this section. (To be eligible to be placed on the ballot, candidates seeking the office of the President of the Student Association must have served in an elected or appointed position within the Student Association for at least six months prior to the Student Association elections.)

The Student Association disputes this. If you reference the Independent Election Bylaws attached to the 7/17/11 Student Association Senate Agenda (Exhibit A)8 9 you will notice that the section in question, the second part of Article IV, Section 2, (D.), is part of the bylaws prior to the start of the meeting. The Independent Election (IEC) Bylaws were passed on a voice vote without amendment including the section in question under Article IV, Section 2, (D.) as evidenced by the 7/17/11 Student Association Senate Meeting Minutes (Exhibit B)10. These minutes were approved at the 8/18/11 Senate meeting as evidenced by the 8/18/11 Student Association Senate Meeting Minutes (Exhibit C)11. As evidenced in the Independent Election Bylaws signed 7/20/11 (Exhibit D)12, the second part of Article IV, Section 2, (D.): To be eligible to be placed on the ballot, candidates seeking the office of President of the Student Association must have served in an elected or appointed position within the Student Association for at least six months prior to the Student Association elections. inexplicably does not exist within the second part of Article IV, Section 2, (D.), but now is placed under Article V, Section 1 (C.) , which was never passed by the Senate. It exists outside the authority of the President to sign into law governing documents different than those passed by the Senate, thus the version passed by the Senate (with the second part of Article IV, Section 2, [D.]) went into effect without Presidential signature 7 days after passage, per the Student Association Constitution. On December 14, 2011 the Student Association President signed SB1112-045, the SA Accountability Act, into law (Exhibit I)13. We do not dispute that the act in question was signed into
Refer to Appendix 4: Dakota Hall v. Student Association Senate, et. al. Refer to Exhibits within Appendix 5: Formal Response to Dakota Hall v. Student Association Senate, et. al. 10 Appendix 5 11 Ibid 12 Ibid 13 Ibid
8 9

Page 8 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

law, however it struck Article V Section 1, (C.), a section that did not exist in the true legal version of the IEC Bylaws, leaving intact Article IV, Section 2, (D.): To be eligible to be placed on the ballot, candidates seeking the office of President of the Student Association must have served in an elected or appointed position within the Student Association for at least six months prior to the Student Association elections.. A signed copy of the amended bylaws does not exist or has yet to be found; regardless, again, it exists outside the authority of the President to sign into law governing documents different than those passed/amended by the Senate, thus the version passed by the Senate (with the second part of Article IV, Section 2, [D.]) went into effect without Presidential signature 7 days after passage. Not only has the signed copy of the IEC Bylaws been proven to be an illegitimate copy, this issue fails to address that the IEC Bylaws have been amended several times since and there are not signed copies on record reflecting the changes. The signed version is illegitimate as evidenced. 4.0(b) [redacted] offered an explanation of this enforcement by claiming that the referenced text had actually appeared in two different sections of the Bylaws but had only been stricken in one. No copy of the Bylaws where this clause appears in two different places has been located.

This explanation has no basis in fact. The Senate Oversight and Rules Committee (SORC) affirmed that the current IEC Bylaws in effect (Exhibit H)14 includes the second part of Article IV, Section 2, [D.]: To be eligible to be placed on the ballot, candidates seeking the office of President of the Student Association must have served in an elected or appointed position within the Student Association for at least six months prior to the Student Association elections.. SORC based its decision on the legislative history evidenced in the aforementioned exhibits that reaffirmed that the second part of Article IV, Section 2, [D.] was still intact. The most current Bylaws are linked on the University Student Courts Election Headquarters page: http://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Elections

4.0(c)

Additionally, even if such a document exists, it seems clear that the intent of the Senate action was to remove both the clause and its effect. [Emphasis added]

As aforementioned, no such document with said clause present in two different places exists ; again, the Bylaws in effect are available online. You cannot assume that just because legislation is intending to strike something that isnt there that it inherently strikes a completely different line. The scope of legislative intent cannot be creatively construed to strike lines in governing documents that were not specified in the legislation in
14

Appendix 5

Page 9 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

question. It would be poor precedent if we are to consider lines stricken in a governing document that were not stated to be explicitly affected by legislation in question; it goes beyond the scope of legislative intent. If we are to consider the legislative intent of the SA Accountability Act we must look at the modern legislature and the diversity of intent. Does the 6 month rule in question have anything to do with accountability in the Student Association in the context of the rest of the bill (which is about recall reform)? Additionally, the bill itself was co-sponsored by nine (9) Senators and passed by the Senate, each with the possibility of a different intention. The most important reason to doubt that legislative intent settles interpretation is that the modern legislature is a group, rather than an individual, and it seems unclear how a group, especially a group like a legislature, may have intentions.15 Scholars question quite how (and even why) legislative intent should be considered. So long as we think legislative intention is a matter of what someone has in mind and means to communicate by a vote, we must take as primary the mental states of particular people because institutions do not have minds, and then we must worry about how to consolidate individual intentions into a collective, fictitious group intention.16 This implies to construct a legislative intent an interpreter must fabricate an intention from a set of disparate and incompatible individual intentions. The interpreter must choose whose intentions to count towards the construct and which of their intentions to count.17 These choices are arbitrary and may not, of course, be constrained by reference to the legislatures true intent, for no such intent exists. Thus, the sceptics[sic] conclude, legislative intent does not exist. 18 The intent of the bills author may itself be completely different than the intent of the cosponsors and the collective intent of the Senate as a legislative body. The intentions of the legislators plainly diverge in many ways. The legislators have their own private plans, they may act for certain parts of a bill but not for others, and they may vote for a bill not knowing its detail and in part to conform to party discipline or some such. Certain legislators will be much better-informed than others about the detail of the bill and its likely effect, while others may be ignorant or confused about its content. Thus, the intentions of individual legislators are not identical, which is what one might hope for if aggregation was to work. Further, a minority of legislators nearly always votes against a bill, and their intentions are quite different from those of other legislators.19 Again, taking into consideration a legislative body like the Student Association Senate, it becomes questionable to make an interpretation or judgment off of intent. The Investigative Team has not interviewed the Senate body from 2011, in which the legislation originates and has somehow come to this conclusion as fact. The Investigative Team was provided with 94 pages of documents along with explanation (during the interview of the Chief Justice) tracing the IEC Bylaws back to 2011 to prove the IEC Bylaws on
Sources:
15 16

Richard Ekins, What is legislative intent? (STATUTE LAW SOCIETY 2008) R Dworkin, Laws Empire (Hart Publishing Oxford 1998) 17 Dworkin (n 5) 318-27, 329-35 18 Ekins 5 19 Ibid, Ekins

Page 10 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

the USC website, and available to the student body, were indeed legitimate and thus in effect. What is troubling is there is no mention of this in the report released by the Investigative Team. The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 5.0 Minutes of SORC meetings (from [redacted]) were not made available on a timely basis. When minutes were requested [redacted] and by the SA Advisor. [redacted] failed to respond. In our individual interview with [redacted] stated that, due to [redacted] was behind in SORC meeting minutes, and that [redacted]. Additionally, aside from not responding to minutes requested from the SA Advisor [redacted] stated that [redacted] requested meeting minutes and that [redacted] did not respond to this request.

The Student Association agrees that the minutes in question were not made available at the time in question and would like to explain the events surrounding this, as an explanation was not encompassed in the report. The acting SORC Chair was injured which required extensive surgery on his wrist and forearm. This injury, for the time in question, prevented the SORC Chair from meeting SORC, and subsequently completing and approving the minutes in order to release them upon request at this time. The SORC Chair informed POC of the situation. The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 6.0 Testimony was given that campaign flyers for the ASV party were printed on the Student Association printer. [emphasis added]

The Student Association does not dispute that this testimony may have been given. However, this testimony is completely false. The ASV party purchased all campaign flyers from UWM Union Marketing and has provided an invoice for review.20 The Investigative Team did not investigate this nor did they provide evidence that this took place. The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 7.0 [redacted] ran a campaign as a write-in candidate for a senate seat [redacted] because [redacted] believed there to be three open seats and only one candidate on the preliminary online ballot. When [redacted] voted, there were, indeed, three available votes. [redacted] states that [redacted] confirmed [redacted] that there were three open seats. By the next day, voters were offered only one choice. [Emphasis added]

The IEC did receive a complaint about this issue. The IEC ultimately re-issued the write-in candidate a new ballot to address the complaint. However, it is inconclusive on what may have
20

Refer to Appendix 6: Invoice for ASV Fliers from UWM Marketing

Page 11 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

been the cause or if this was a technical issue. All balloting was done with the oversight of the Dean of Students office. There was only one open Senate seat for the School of Architecture and Urban Planning (SARUP) and no student was able to vote for more than one Senator for the SARUP.21 The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 8.0 University Court complaints that were filed appear to have been dismissed without providing adequate review. Examples include the complaint that (redacted) filed against the Student Association and the request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and complaint that (redacted) filed against the IEC. In the case of (redacted) complaint, the University Court stated that one of the reasons it was dismissed was because the complaint should have been filed against SORC, rather than the Student Association. In reality, SORC is a component of the Student Association as a standing committee designated in the Student Association Constitution. [Emphasis added]

The Senate Oversight and Rules Committee (SORC) is a standing committee of the Senate. The SORC should have been listed as the defendant due to where the alleged harm originated. The Student Association is the collective body of student government. This was not the only factor in why the case was dismissed. The USC found that the petitioner was also incorrect and thus not harmed, in addition to not fully meeting the standard of collusiveness, due to the lack of real adversity between the parties. It is important to mention that the case was re-filed correctly and accepted because it met the University Student Court standards set forth for accepting a case.22 The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 9.0 [COMPLETELY REDACTED]

Contrary to the public interest and the interests of the organization, this fact was completely redacted. It is important to note that the report in question has any and all public officials redacted. The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 10.0 Additionally, in denying (redacted) request for a TRO23, the University Court stated that one of the reasons was because the defendant did not provide an answer or defense in the matter. Such logic is antithetical to a fair court decision.

Refer to Appendix 7: Correspondence Between IEC Chair and Redacted Write-in Candidate Refer to Appendix 8: Disposition of University Student Court Case # 1213-003 23 Refer to Appendix 9: TRO Request Dakota Hall, et al. v. IEC
21 22

Page 12 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

Section 9.2.3 of the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee (UWM) University Student Court (USC) Bylaws24 states: A TRO should be requested in complaint form. Section 9.2.2 of the USC Bylaws states: A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is extraordinary in nature and not normally granted unless it appears that a party is entitled to judgments and the commission or continuance of the act during litigation would injure the petitioning party or it appears that during the litigation a party is doing or about to do some act that would result in irreparable harm to the petitioning party in violation of what is owed to the party or in harm that would tend to render a later judgment ineffectual. Evidence must be provided for allegations of irreparable harm. The TRO request from a representative of People of Change against the Independent Election Commission failed to meet any of the above criteria. The TRO was not requested in complaint form. The petitioner fails to provide any evidence of injury or irreparable harm. The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact: 11.0 It appears that there was no systematic marketing of the call for nominations process. Again, given that the prominent tenet of the Student Association (as stated in the SA Constitution) is to ensure participation in student governance. This lack of solicitation is disturbing. [Emphasis added]

There is currently no requirement within the governing documents of the Student Association to engage in systematic marketing on behalf of the Student Association. In general this is not practiced by governmental agencies and promotion is done by political parties, interest groups, organizations, the media, social networking, individuals, candidates, events, etc. The Investigative Team interjects charged judgment into what, by their admission, appears to be the case.

24

Refer to Appendix 9: University Student Court Bylaws

Page 13 of 14

From: To: Date: RE:

Student Association of UW-Milwaukee President Kevin Reilly

Contention(s) of Fact(s) Related to the Investigation by UW-Whitewater and Subsequent Adverse Action by Chancellor Michael Lovell

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Independent Election Commission (IEC) Bylaws Appendix 2: Student Association Constitution Appendix 3: UWM Center for Student Involvement Student Organization Manual Appendix 4: Dakota Hall v. Student Association Senate, et. al. Appendix 5: Formal Response to Dakota Hall v. Student Association Senate, et. al. a. Exhibit A: 7/17/11 Student Association Senate Agenda b. Exhibit B: 7/17/11 Student Association Senate Meeting Minutes c. Exhibit C: 8/18/11 Student Association Senate Meeting Minutes d. Exhibit D: Independent Election Bylaws signed 7/20/11 e. Exhibit I: SA Accountability Act f. Exhibit H: Current IEC Bylaws

Appendix 6: Invoice for ASV Fliers from UWM Marketing Appendix 7: Correspondence Between IEC Chair and Redacted Write-in Candidate Appendix 8: Disposition of University Student Court Case # 1213-003 Appendix 9: TRO Request Dakota Hall, et al. v. IEC Appendix 10: University Student Court Bylaws

Prepared by Taylor Q. Scott and Michael S. Ludwig on behalf of the UWM Student Association

Page 14 of 14