Skip to content

Well, 44’s an even number…

April 20, 2011

…this week’s agenda, down 9 pages from last week’s agenda, is filled with many marvelous wonders of bylaws, legislation and more. Lets get started shall we? I wish I hadn’t eaten all my Panera so fast. *sigh.

Also, for your viewing pleasure (though I know you all would prefer to read my comprehensive notes…) here is the ASM LIVE FEED by the lovely Nneka 🙂 Thanks girl!

This week’s agenda.


Roll is called. Woo!

  • Rep Neibart says the Earth Day celebration that was planned for this week has been postponed. Can you postpone ‘Earth Day’? Isn’t every day a day of the earth?…too philosophical for me.
  • Rep Huang: Multicultural Student Center is hiring a director….(more details if you email her.)
  • Rep Roberts: LGBT is also hiring a director. (details upon request.)

OPEN FORUM: Rep. Rae Lymer has a letter from Rep Junger (SSFC Legal Council). She reads. Junger is apologetic for not being here today, but in support of the SSFC legislation changes.

  • Rep Lymer: Discussion and answer on changes SSFC Eligibility Criteria legislation.  A lot was taken into account to create these. 
  • Lena: Wants to know if Council enjoyed any of the fun activities put on this weekend? Brings up how humiliating and intimidating it is for the students who come forward to speak before Council: they are put down and asked details and questions that put them on the spot. Talks about the disrespect and outright rudeness displayed by some members of Council. Pleased with some of the members who will not be a part ASM or Student Council next session.
  • Grad Student Rep to be: Talks about the proposed ‘Administration Liaison’ position. Some concerns: no term limits, no way to hold them accountable. Discusses other legislation aspects.


  • Grad Student Rep to be: (Yes, my sincere apologies…I missed her name. I think its Nancy..) Talking with Rep. Leedle about info sessions, reaching out to students, outreach, getting students involved. Talks about her graduate constituents. Strange discussion on strategy ideas for getting people involved next session…
  • Chair Manes: Puts things in perspective about going through the process and what it actually takes to get things passed through Student Council meetings…
  • GSTB: Actually, starting now and not waiting till Fall…working through summer and getting things started right away. Putting things in place…
  • Chair Manes: Can’t exactly hold a lot of forums during the summer, leaves some people out of the process and discussion…
  • Continued discussion on appointing people..Noms Board appoints to interim appointments and Shared Gov does other appointments.
  • Rep Hanley: Appreciates the enthusiasm of Nancy and asks about other ways she plans to utilize her position in Council.
  • Zach: elected grad rep for 18th session: speaking against the Administrative Liaison legislation. It will be a hassle for the 18th session and seems prematurely set up. Finds it curious that the proposed outline for the committee….is what ASM should be doing anywhere. Doesn’t see how a closed committee of 7 people would be more relevant to what Student Council could/should do. Discussion with various leaders about meetings over the summer, giving flexibility to the 18th session to be able to do what they wish to do.


More discussion on letting 18th Session do their thing. Talking about voting down the Administration Liaison committee. Taking the summer to get things ready so a process will be set for Fall. A little bit of a discussion of how hard and political a process it can be to get things passed, have decisions made.

  • Nneka A: Hip Hop fliers being passed out. Kick off at Union South! Want to see Council members there! Its a full week of events. Shoutout to those watching from the LIVE Feed! Woo! Also SO to Zach and the discussion about the Administration Liaison legislation. Also, she says she is big with follow through. Talking about those who take initiative and get involved, get things done. Brought a list of concerns before Council: concerns about Operations grants-Nneka was saying that there is a trend that multicultural and greek organizations seemingly get a less percentage of the budgets they ask for—it is a reflection on the criteria. It is discriminatory. Smaller orgs get less funding which is a problem for them trying to grow.

Also talks about how Council does things ‘to me’ not ‘for me’ in regards to students. Council supposed to be supportive. Other issue is outreach-developing relationships and reaching out to make friends. Point out that that doesn’t seem to be happening. Last point, role of the 17th session isn’t supportive of its constituents of a whole, none of the legislation has to do with New Badger Partnership, ASM hasn’t taken an official role on it. Also, Manes’s attitude and overall dealings with students is disrespectful, rude and not appreciated by many students. He has “successfully oppressed students”. Hopes she was able to shed light on what people have been saying about ASM in the 17th session.

  • More discussion on 17th session, the Hip Hop events coming up and the upcoming 18th session.
  • Rashi:Update on hunger clean up-number one in the country. Dorm storms for education on weatherizing are coming up.

7:56PM On to approval of the agenda. General discussion on which pieces of legislation can be approved by ‘unanimous consent’ I, J, K and L were just UNANIMOUSLY CONSENTED. 

Some more moving things around, moving chair reports to the end because of all the things being brought up.

So as we sit back and relax while they decide some of the more important aspects for tonight….how’s it going? Cha up to? I’m just sitting here. Multi-tasking actually…watching the LIVE Feed….and also ya know, watching the real thing. Leave me comments! I love responding to comments. Oh! Guess what!?! This is my 2nd to last live blog….its kinda bittersweet. It’s ok, I know you’ll miss me… 😦

8:01PM Agenda approved. Minutes approved.

Agenda item D:

  • Chair Manes: says he would like to address Lena’s comments; feels the accusations against him are…incorrect. Someone, please applaud my politically-correct paraphrasing. Manes says they are also looking for alternatives to things in SSFC, several amendments he has proposed, trying to make changes to the system. Will address the pieces of SSFC legislation as they come up.

Agenda item A:

  • Talking about the creation of the Sustainability Committee Creation-should ASM really create this committee? Other student orgs have discussed this. Could it be done through University Affairs task force? Why must it be an organized committee?
  • Chair Fergus: UA will have way to much to work on. Sustainability Committee will be a sexy way to do things. Will have more people interested in it. Fergus sees it as a coalition.
  • Rep Neibart: I see this to be helpful and not just frivolous.
  • Chair Fergus: Won’t have enough people/volunteers involved if there isn’t a specific space set aside for it. Its a get way to get people involved.
  • Rep Hanley: What research have you done, what committees or groups have you talked to to see what is already out there in terms of sustainability and getting peopel inovolved?
  • Rep Neibart: Through me ‘Earth Day’ research I found FH King does sustainability things WISPIRG; there are many outlets and groups we can go to to get advice etc…
  • Rep Hanley: Have you found anyone interested in chairing this committee or are we just creating this committee for the 18th session to look for someone to fill?
  • Rep Neibart: Yeah there has been some expressed interest.
  • Chair Fergus: But know that this will be open to anyone on campus, not just for a member sitting on Council. Also, no money specifically allocated for it. If they want to run events…have to ask for funding.
  • Rep Hanley: Sustainability is a good thing, a new fad. But my concern is we’re just creating these committees for the sake of creating a committee…why not make it an intern project? What exactly, can we get a grasp on this before we try to make a whole new committee? We dont necessarily have money for a chair of this committee anyway. If there are people interested and excited to do this, let them do this in other ways rather than institutionaizing it. Do that AFTER you see that its doing something. Let them try it out, test it…then sink ourselves in. I won’t fight it if Council thinks its a good idea…I look forward to hearing what the rest of Council has to say/think as they are on their laptops…
  • Secretary Ostenson: We already have a committee that had some flak for not doing what it was supposed to…voting this down won’t decrease the desire of 18th session to work on it.
  • Rep Leedle:This is an excuse to get sustainability mentioned, get people involved in ASM and excited to do something…I think any excuse to do that is a good thing. If we want to do something, lets do it! At the end of the day, everyone thinks sustainability is a good thing. If 18th session doesn’t think this will work, let them take it out as easily as we vote it in.

Call to question. 11 in favor. 6 opposed. Role call vote.

11-5-2. That carries. Will see this legislation at next week’s meeting.


Agenda item B: Shared Governance Reform Act

Whew! People passionate about this.

  • Rep Hanley very much in support of this, “There is the opportunity to have your voice heard and change things on campus. Here is an opportunity to say ‘YES we believe in 36.09(5)”. We NEED to do this!Wishes she had done more in Shared Gov than perhaps things in Student Council.
  • Discussion on different aspects. This would allow Shared Gov committees to elect their own chairs. Mk, now that are making some amendments and changes. It’d be nice if you all were following the LIVEFeed… 😉
  • Call to question: striking lines 5-9 on the 3rd page of the legislation. PASSES
  • Call to question…on another specific part of wording. PASSES an official copy of the final, approved legislation will be available…once it’s finalized and approved. For the rest of us lay people, they are clarifying and clearing up various aspects of this Reform Act. Trying to get it ‘just right’. That’s so cute.
  • Rep Fergus:Union did bring up some good concerns when they spoke last week in Open Forum. I’d like to hear the opinion of  those on Shared Gov who would have some input in this.
  • Rep Hanley: A lot of committees do this already where they appoint their own chair or have a rotating chair…I’m open as well to ideas or suggestions. But generally its better than letting an outside source be selecting this. Provides a structure and authority…I’d like to see more of this used next year.
  • Rep Huang: …my experience is that students merely sit on committees but rarely ever talk..if there were co-chairs and one of the co-chairs needs to be a student, you get that one student actively involved in the agenda and aspects of the committee. Usually I’m the only one who speaks in committees…
  • General discussion on the value of co-chairs. More discussion on procedures and institutionalizing.Still on original amendment…which is being called to question…oh hey! They’re amended…cool.
  • HUGE SHOUTOUT again to Nneka A and her awesome-ness at setting up the LIVE Feed!!!
  • Chair Brandon: I know this is the second to last meeting, but normally I would yell at people for how this process is being handled in amending this legislation…let that be a lesson for the 18th session…hear, hear!
  • (Hums ‘Jeopardy’ (C) music….)


Still on Agenda item B: Shared Governance Act

  • Thomas Templeton enters the room. Thomas Templeton gets a cup of water. Thomas Templeton sits down….next to me.
  • Rep Neibart: I think right now all the items and amendments we needed are good to go.

SHOUTOUT to Guest1717 on the LIVEFeed Chat. It is indeed who you say it is. And it is hard to be as cool as me…but really, the correct terminology is ‘AMAZING’. Its ok though, I give lessons. 😀

9:05PM Call to question and ROLL. Seconded. At least I can get the terminology recorded accurately.

Vote of 12-2-2 that CARRIES. We will see this next week.

Next up: Agenda C Administrative Liaison Committee Bylaws

10 minutes recess. Need sustenance! See ya back here soon!


And we’re back! Motion to table C-H to get to New Business A: SAC Reserve Account Bylaws.

  • Chair Ziebell: The SAC is a building that needs extensive upkeep. Currently, the SACGB budget goes back into the ASM reserves at the end of the year. Ziebell proposes a reserve account to put money in to that can be used in the future for unforeseen costs.
  • Motion carries. Legislation is introduced and will be seen next meeting for approval

Back to Agenda item C: Administrative Liaison Committee Bylaws.

  • Chair Fergus: With the NBP this will ensure students are in on all levels of decision making process.
  • Amendment: Changing the term limit to ONE SESSION. Carries.
  • Chair Manes: I think this is pretty good as a whole. A good way to appoint a trustee without having to go through elections. They are there to represent the student voice. Don’t want to subject them to the whims and polarizing of Student Council. We need the best person possible. Having a process in place this summer is good. This person will represent our interests. The 18th session can change this in Fall if they really deem this not necessary. But to leave it open to an untested group in this process would be irresponsible…
  • Secretary Ostenson: speaking as a member of the soon to be 18th session, this is good to have a solid process for the summer then picking this up in the fall. Good to have the interim set in place.
  • Chair Brandon: Im going to speak agst this. The idea is preemptive-CHair Fergus has admitted we don’t have system wide governance with a board yet…if that comes about I think that we can discuss the processes then. But for the Board of Trustees position, I am terribly afraid of the way this committee is going to shape out when they realize the position’s true purpose. Also, elections aren’t a bad idea. …….this is a rushed piece of legislation. 18th session will have to deal with this….my concern is that this is being thrown in there in haste.
  • Chair Fergus: This is not a rushed process. This has been in conversation for at least a couple months. Williams is right…I don’t want to see this come to election bc it will come from someone who spends a lot of money on the election or gets all their friends to vote, regardless of if they are good for it or not. This shouldnt go to the best campaigner. This is an interim process till Council sees fit to change it. Makes amendment to advertise this to the entire student body…This is specifically to be sent out to the entire student body. Then the search-and-screen can decide. We really should have pointed in this legislation that it is for everyone.
  • Chair Manes: Lets pass this amendment then go back to the main point about whether we should approve this or not.
  • Amendment carries.
  • Rep Neibart: This should definitely go through an application process. Potentially put in very strict election rules…I am in support of this however…I think in 18th session this should be one of our top priorities. I urge 18th session to examine this. I call to question.



Moving on.

  • Grad Rep B-S: Brings up some great points. Causes amendment for ‘interim appointment will be ineligible for permanent appointment’ to be passed. 
  • Chair Nichols: I understand people view elections as a popularity contest. But if you really care you can hold town hall meetings, hold town hall meetings etc, I don’t necessarily think it means you’re buying into the elections. People say the next session is expected to make changes…let them do it. Don’t push this through…let them figure it out. If this doesn’t get passed that doesn’t mean…well, without another process someone won’t be appointed. But those people who have been speaking about 18th session…I don’t think they;ll let that fall through the cracks. This is a big thing. They should solicit more feedback…
  • Chair Fergus: This isn’t just about Board of Trustees…its for anything that comes through the system.
  • Chair Nichols: I realize this isn’t only for that..but essentially, right now it is. If its for other committees, they can put legislation for it over the summer. This is the time sensitive one, which is why its here before us now.
  • Chair Manes: I don’t think this is pre-emptive. You need a process. Without a process, you’re going to stall and get no answer. To get something in place in time, is unrealistic. It takes several months to get it set up. Its going to be next year before you find someone good enough for this role. To say this is next session’s issue and they can figure it out…this is an issue now. We need to decide what is the best process now, possible. I want to look at the composition…find a process that is ideal…at the end of this process, you’ll have hundreds of students weighing in on who should be the best person….requires an orchestration of a lot of people to get the best one…any of the other methods proposed opens itself for more criticism and cronyism. I don’t think this is being put forth in haste. We as a student body need someone put in place…more commentary along the same lines. Motion to limit discussion until 10:45PMCarries.
  • Amendment: All appointments must be approved by a majority of Student Council.
  • Chair Williams:  Brilliant analogy. Williams just took the Council to town. I hope the Live Feed is being recorded for future reference. Soooo….if you missed it, that’s unfortunate. I was too busy following the analogy to type it. And eating Wheat Thins…mmmm.
  • Amendment: Add ‘…that are NOT members of SSFC or Student Council’ Chair Fergus: This clears up that we could potentially just appoint people from this body-makes it so its outside this body and prevents cronyism. I caution any Council going forward that would ‘OK’ an appointment to think how the process went before doing that.
  • Chair Manes: I agree.
  • Discussion and debate on whatever motion or amendment we are on.


  • Chair Manes: It is possible  but very very difficult for a group to manage to take over control. We have prevented this. For now, for next session, I think its really important to have a process in place. They can figure out the nuances. I don’t think they will have that control or cronyism over this.
  • Rep Neibart: I actually will agree with Chair Williams. I can see this being highly manipulative. When you know a system you can pretty much run it..and I think we’ve seen that in the past. If you want to speak up or have worries about this, speak up! This is very different. This is the best process we have right now, but…we need to do damage control. However, this is coming upon us very quickly. We have one meeting left. I agree with all the amendments made. I think that I would like to see a little more ‘at-large’ appointees. But to this search and screen……I am content with how it is…I think we exhausted most of the worries.
  • On to a motion to strike some lines and create a new section that says all appointments must be verified by a majority of Council….Carries


So, hey guys…I’m almost over 200 viewers tonight. That’s peachy…on a good night we have approx 300 or more. I know you all missed me and are slowly coming back to read my witty dialogue about food and snarky comments on Council…feel free to recommend this to your friends! Por favor! K thx.

  • Rep Hanley: …I’m going to echo what I said about sustainability committee…I hate making committees. Lets try doing something better than that….next session, session after that, they know how to change the previous years bylaws etc. Im still interested in hearing what other people have to say.
  • Grad Rep B-S: I move to amend this to say this process is ONLY to pertain to interim appointees.
  • Definition of interim, anyone? PS: 8 minutes left to debate this…
  • Grad Rep B-S seems to be suggesting a sunset clause….


More discussion and debate over the same general facts. I’m sure it bears repeating…but I think you get the jist. Oooo great quote! Chair Williams: Its ok! Democracy scares me too!” LOLZ!

Motion to add the process for all interim appointments at the beginning of the amendment CARRIES.


Oh this is going well, first few people ‘Passed’. So far its about even. More ‘passes’. Oh man….this is going to take quite a while. Back to the top…’Pass’.

Drum roll. 6-9-1 Motion FAILS.

Chair Beemsterboer: That motion fails. We’ll move on to more important things. General scoff-age.


On to: Agenda item D: Eligibility Bylaw Changes

For those who don’t understand, this is coming from the Student Services Finance Committee pertaining to how they decide if and how a Registered Student Organization receives funding. Another minor note from the peanut gallery: Council is dropping like flies. 4 people just left. Down to 17 Council members here.

  • Motion to add that “University students must be the main receivers of a groups beneficiaries. ” Carries
  • Motion to take this up with new amendment that was jut added. Carries
  • Rep Neibart: I know its late but this is very important. Please ask questions if you don’t understand something. It will greatly affect the next cycle of eligibility hearings. This has been constructed primarily by Rae and SSFC members. I think most of the concerns have been addressed. This definitely makes definition and language more clear so they know what we’re asking. Rep Plamman made a flow chart…
  • Still on debate of whole motion.
  • Chair Williams: I think there are a lot of positive changes in here. I have some concerns, but I want to talk about the more positive things…first, clarifying member as “active agent” is great. Don’t want a group that has to cater to its members. We want a group whos services benefit all students. Im a little word about the definition change to ‘publication’…it is complex. SSFC has to read and debate that point now. Whenever we find  group that is walking the line on a criteria, that’s where they find problems and it takes hours to decide. Make a motion that ‘event’ be removed…and cross that entire portion out and replace it. Just replacing new definition with the old one…I don’t see the rationale with the new one…opens up to what we don’t want to see GSSF do.
  • Chair Fergus: murmurs agreeing comments.
  • SSFC Rep Rae Lymer: I don’t see this changing much…also doesnt like the motion Williams made about events and specific dates; explains the checks and balances to that system.
  • Rep Neibart: Explains they did this bc if a group has a speakers bureau, specific workshops etc; some groups consider those direct services…sometimes having speakers give a wide array of talks…

Honestly not sure what we’re talkingabout currently. But hey guess what!?! It’s 11:11PM! Make a wish!!! <fingers crossed> Say it with me now…*I wish Student Council didn’t go till midnight!*

11:12PM Discussing a few clarifying points. Also talking about how sometimes it’s even hard for SSFC members to understand the criteria.

  • Manes brings up contradictions. Speaks forcibly. “Getting to the point of absurdity. Can’t legislate everything. Can’t define every word. Have to be able to use judgement. That is why SSFC exists, to interpret the criteria. Need to have the flexibility to interpret.”

Call to question.

  • Event definition changed.
  • Chair Manes: Publication definition. Think that a publication that is vital to campus and needs to be done? Then we need to find a different way to do that. GSSF is for students to receive direct services. I’m on the fence with this one…leaning towards no. …..moving on…(different defn) I don’t want to limit SSFC to this certain defn.
  • Limit debate to 11:40PM APPROVED.


Move by Chair Williams to strike ‘Publication’ definition.

  • Chair Williams:  I think the definition of publication…which says a publication could be a publication if it met certain criteria…while I consider a publication a great supplement that can teach me a lot, I don’t consider it a direct service. We never defined publication before, I think it is very simple to understand. I think this definition creates a nuance argument and escapes the rationale behind it.
  • Call to question. Fails
  • More clarification on “publication”.
  • Call to question. Equal division. Passes by vote of Chair.
  • Main motion


I feel like this is going in circles…at what point do we all fall down?

  • Chair Nichol: Calls out Council.
  • Call to question. Fails.
  • SSFC Rep Lymer: I’m ok with getting rid of ‘publications’. But I’m not ok with getting rid of events. I work several job and run several organizations to get by…this wouldn’t raise seg fees! This is an improvement and progress; I think we should keep moving forward on this.
  • ‘Chairship’ Beemsterboer: And with that the hour to vote is upon us.
  • Call to divide the motion. Aye. CARRIES
  • For the rest of it, ‘Leadership Opportunities’ et al ROLL CALL
  • 6-2-5 CARRIES


Beemsterboer returns the Chairship to Sir Williams. Multiple calls for adjournment. Multiple objections. DIVISION

Ah! Chaos and pandemonium! Snow, sleet, hail and rain!…waiiitttt….

Manes Amendments’ tabled. Adios!

Onto Campus Service Fund.

  • Chair Manes: Please vote on this tonight so we can bring it up next time!
  • Neibart questions his intent in creating the CSF.
  • Discussion on…accountability, the process, Rules Committee…move on to debate.
  • Rep Neibart: …I am in favor of this. I think that the thing with accountability when it comes to SSFC, when it comes down to it, SSFC members have to be accountable to each other and the Chair has to….ASM is the ones helping the ones. I don’t think we need more accountability measures. ASM is the student voice. We should be able to find services on campus that benefit all students.
  • Rep Plamman: This is being rushed. I disagree.
  • Call to question. Carries. Roll call.

7-5-1 Fails.


Agenda item G tabled. On to Agenda item H: SSFC Appeals Reform Acts.

Call to question. Objection. Carries.

  • Neibart speaks on allowing GSSF groups being allowed to CHOOSE to appeal to SSFC or SJ.

Main motion. Call to question to amend removing ‘SJ’ from line 16. Carries.

Call to question. No objection. Call for unanimous consent. Objection. 9-1 Carries.

  • Beemsterboer: Motion to reconsider Agenda item F: CSF. Carries.
  • Call to question.
  • Roll call. 7-0-5. Will see this again next week.

12:00AM Motion to adjourn.

Well, that was interesting. Tune in next week for the LAST STUDENT COUNCIL meeting of the 17th Session. I shall be Liveblogging for the last time, dear readers. You’re in for a real treat 😉 Hasta!


Upcoming Events in ASM University Affairs

April 19, 2011

Message from University Affairs Chair Carl Fergus:

“I’d like to tell you about two upcoming events that my committee has had a part in planning. Today (Tuesday April 19th) at 6-7pm in Humanities room 2261, ASM University Affairs along with UW Credit Union will be hosting a workshop called “Keys to Financial Literacy.” Topics will include money management, debt, financial aid, and financial planning. Most people come to college not knowing much about these topics (I couldnt even balance a checkbook) and this is a great opportunity to learn these essential life skills

Also, next week Tuesday there will be a forum about advising services at UW. This will be similar in form to the forum University Affairs put on last semester, and input from the forum will be considered when figuring out how to use Madison Initiative for Undergraduates (MIU) funds. The information for this forum is below, but it will be held on Tuesday April 26th from 6-7pm at Union South in the Industry Room.”

Hope you can make it! These info sessions are super helpful and can answers all your questions. Any questions, comments or concerns please email Carl at

Student Council LIVE!

April 13, 2011

That’s right. You heard correctly. Dear readers, tonight for your viewing enjoyment, Nneka Akubeze has set up a LIVE feed of the meeting for tonight.

No, no we are are not questioning your integrity as a reader. We are merely making it more simple for home or office viewing.

The link:

It is being set up as I type so hopefully it’ll be on soon. Tune in tonight for some special guests, for some interesting new legislation, and to see if Council can make it through all 53 pages of the agenda tonight.

Any questions, comments or concerns, let us know!

Sit back, enlarge the screen and enjoy 😉 Leave commentary or questions below and I’ll be sure to answer.




While we wait for the LIVE feed to get set up, I’ll give a brief overview.

Darrell Bazzell–>Vice Chancellor for Administration: He is here giving a presentation in fees, budgets and tuition for UW Madison. (Printouts available in the ASM office). Talking about the assumption on tuition is a 8.5% increase. Assumptions in the ‘out’ years, is that it will drop back down to 5% increase each year.

The Council room is full! Every seat taken and the walls are lined. People standing in the back. Interesting…when we talk about a LIVE feed…more people show up. Doest that make sense to you? I’m confused. But certainly not complaining! I wonder how long everyone will stay…


LIVE FEED UP AND WORKING! Tune in (tad bit grainy) and listen to the conversations and debate. Enjoy!

I’ll be in and out of the meeting all night for some updates. Have a good one! Happy Wednesday. Fun fact: only 2 more Student Council meetings for the 17th Session.


Darrell addresses questions from the audience about UW breaking off from the UW System. He doesn’t see this as an issue. Poor argument people who are pushing the ‘Wisconsin Idea’ as why we shouldn’t do it.

–>Talking about New Badger Partnership, in concerns with UW.

Darrell is a great speaker! Hope you’re listening in to the LIVE feed! Watch in about 30 secs as I get up and walk to the door 😉 Be back soon!


Onto the agenda. Due to attendance rules, Rep Ivins and Rep Savoy are no longer Council members-impeached.

Open Forum: Mem Union member and ‘concerned student’. Concerned about the change in legislation to the Shared Governance legislation (see agenda)

Discussing differences btwn how ASM and Shared GOV are made up versus Union Committees.


Still discussing make-up of committees. Fixing lines of the specific piece of legislation.

Several other student speakers.

WISPIRG-upcoming events this month.

Sarah Niebart: New Badger Partnership Forum Town Hall TOMORROW in the Memorial Union 6-8PM. TITU. Hope to see you there!


Open Forum closed with 4 speakers left on the list, due to time constraints. Onto organizing the agenda.


Agenda approved. Call for 5 minute recess. 😀


They have talked about the new GSSF eligibility criteria and had Q&A (Rae Lymer presenting); they discuss the ‘Manes Amendments”. They are talking about the Student Print budget. I’ve been following along on the LIVE feed. Hope you are too!

I’m signing off the LiveBlog for the night. We will be working out the LIVE Feed/LiveBlog details and have a better pairing for you next week.

Look forward to April 27th, the final Student Council meeting of the 17th session, where I, as your lovely Press Office Director, will be LiveBlogging for the final time. It will be epic, filled with old jokes and peanut better M&Ms, references to our fallen, fearless leader the former Neighborhood PO Director AND! a possible preview announcement of NEXT SESSION’s NEW Press Office Director!

Stay tuned 😀 Have a good night all. Stay dry.

ASM Student Council Live Blog

March 30, 2011

I. Roll call: Taken by Secretary Cody Ostenson (6:37PM)

II. Announcements:


III. Removal or impeachment of Representatives, filling of vacancies in the Student Council and swearing in of new Representatives: NONE

IV. Open Forum:

1. Albert Luciani on behalf of Clair Koffeman…working with the American Foundation for suicide prevention and working with UW-Madison. Expecting a really big turn out…story in WI State Journal tomorrow. The walk is two Saturdays from tomorrow. Lori Berquam used this group to save a students life about a month ago! Would like to make this walk an annual event. Currently not a student org, however they are coupled with the UW Psychology club and hope to become a registered org by this summer. Event is at Library Mall Saturday April 9, starting at 11am? Currently there are 60 volunteers and are currently selling shirts for sale in Dean Berquam’s office. If you do not want to walk, there will also be live music ect. around Library Mall


Rep. Hanley: Thank you for coming…just so you are aware there is a facebook page

Rep. Beemsterboer: Will Library Mall be finished and cleaned by then? – No, but there will be an area cleared for people to come through

2. Nneka, running for ASM special student and had to talk to alot of people to encourage them to vote for her and in talking to people their concerns were voiced. One of the concerns was the ad in the badger herald…wants to make the council aware that the finance chair was breaking bylaws

3. Sam Seering, speaking on Open Governments Act legislation …decided to relook at posting procedures for agendas. decided to copy and past state statues for the meeting laws. designate that agendas must be sent out to business newspapers *sigh* alot of legislative jargon…


Rep. Neibart: what is the rules committee working on next- Campus Service Fund, will be working on all aspects of it and have a 2 week process

4. Raashi WISPERG president, still working to fund raise..hunger clean up is at $4,000. Big Red Go Green went well and they are still actively working on new projects

5. Rep. Manes, ask that all rep. go around and say whether they have collaborated with WISPERG

– Rep. Leedle – why do you feel like you should be entitled to such information

– Rep. Manes – reads bylaws which state need for disclosure of such information

– Chair Williams- until we look at legislation from WISPERG there is not need to go around and disclose such information (6:56PM)

Rep. Niebart – what legislation do you plan to bring forth before this board?

….Manes talks alot…… bylaws, rules, stipends ect…

6. Allie WISPERG rep,  like to talk about appeals legislation on the agenda for tonight. It seems like its undermining the power of SJ and putting more power with SSFC, and it should be kept in the hands of Student Judiciary.

7. Matt, asks that people will disclose who are members of the group “AFTER”. Hopes that people end the semester well and not let any of these issues divide council

8. Rep. Niebart, very disappointed at the town meeting turn out. There is another meeting soon and wants to know how many people will be involved…if the council will not agree to be involved than this event will not go through. Wants everyone to think about their roles on campus as student leaders. We all have responsibilities. Think about your roles and do not abuse them. Make a conscious effort to have a united body that is open to working together. (7:06PM)

9. Rep. Nichols, talking about the NOMS board. Up to 10 applicants which is really good news. NOMS board is really busy in the beginning of the year, there will be an article in the Herald about open positions. Info will also be on twitter and facebook. Get the word out! Send to friends and anyone who you think will be interested

10. Rep. Otles Engineering Expo 2011..biggest outreach event for College of Engineering. April 14-16 come by and see what the engineers are working on!


VI. Reading and Approval of the Minutes: APPROVED (7:12PM)

VII. Reports of Special Committees and Campaigns:

VIII. Reports of Standing Committees and Boards:
a. Diversity Committee –

b. Finance Committee – heard over 91 grants…

c. Legislative Affairs Committee – worked on SB 6…assembly will release there version of SB 6. Trying to plan an event for later in the month to discuss with property managers and students where they will get together and talk about ideas and criticisms ect…

d. Nominations Board –

e. Shared Governance Committee – last week had a great meeting, held discussions on New Badger Partnership, great opportunity and discussion. Encourage council to attend. Applications are now open for seat in Shared Gov. due by a week from tom.

f. Student Activity Center Governing Board – working on by law changes and internal workings for next year. will be working on the appeals process and how they can work through problems that are presented without having to go through SJ

g. University Affairs Committee – we have 17 boxes of ASM bags which will be used in the book swap and as general advertising tools, also partnering with WISPERG for Earth Day…still working on class attendance policy

IX. Reports (7:22PM)
a. Chair – having coordinating council prepare transitioning papers to make transition easier then it was last year

b. Vice-Chair – busy next three week…if anyone is interested in UW Baraboo council meeting, please let people know..would like the information before the DC trip..Let us know by Saturday. New Badger Partnership- meeting with Darrell Gazell? on Monday to get tuition and budget projections, will have that hard data soon

c. Student Judiciary – had 6 SACGB complaints…had 2 complaints tangentially related to elections which will be heard soon…providing justices are currently collecting availability. other than that just like every other body preparing for the end of the year and elections ect…

d. Student Services Finance Committee – writing report for the Chancellor…continuing to evaluate how they handle real mechanism to ensure groups are complying, so looking at instituting accountability liaisons…in the process of deciding how these roles will work (7:27PM)

X. Reports of Liaisons –
XI.  Special Orders –

XII. Introduction of New Legislation
a. 17-0330-01 Removing Segregated Fees From Elections:                                                      Vice-Chair Johnson – this proposes that we simplify the language in the by-laws so there are no disparities and do not allow for loop holes in the system

**ok, I’m REALLY SORRY! Alot was said but people don’t speak loud enough and they talk very fast, so I didn’t catch some of it!!! …bare. with me.

– essentially there is debate about this legislation. It cannot be passed in Student Council must go through Student Judiciary 


b. 17-0330-02 SSFC Appeals Reform Act: Certain standards for reviewing things  coming out of SSFC and alot of the things coming out are underdeveloped and so there needs to be an internal appeal process within SSFC (7:48PM) *note…council skipped this legislation and just came back to it!


c. 17-0330-03 Student Judiciary Precedent II:  Chief Justice Fifeld – if you think precedent is bad it can be challenged

– Niebart: how can precedent be bad? – that would depend on case..if panel decides on a hearing and use result from previous case and the person argues that the result for the other case was bad, the person is able to appeal the decision

d. 17-0330-04 Student Judiciary Ex Parte Communications: Chief Justice Fifeld – only part that is changing is section B, discourages  sending emails to Judiciary’s if it contains persuasion or any type of information that could be incriminating. If the Justice deems the information inappropriate they reserve the right to pass along this information to other Justices ect.. (7:42PM)

e. 17-0330-05 Student Judiciary Briefs and Complaints: Chief Justice Fifeld- to “file a complaint” means that a party has submitted a completed complaint form to the Chief Justice and has received notice that the Chief Justice is in receipt of said form

f. 17-0330-06 SAC Front Desk Hiring Bylaw Changes: Chair Zibell – thinks its necessary to have the front desk represented by ASM. Primary reason for this is that in the structure for ASM the hiring for front desk goes through NOMS Board, so give the hiring authority to the SACGB chair and the front desk manager…also sets up a separate wage policy, similar to StudentPrint. Allows them to have a hierarchy within their structure


Niebart: why would this necessary? – last year we had to hire front desk staff and alot of people left and graduated and there was not enough time within ASM structure to hire people quickly…so if manager had authority to hire it would move alot quicker (8:04PM)

XIII. Old Business
a. 17-0330-07 Open Government Act:


Niebart – it is very important for this council to approve this legislation unanimously. transparency is important.


b. 17-0323-02 SACGB Composition Change: Chair Zibell – sent friendly amendments a while ago..highlights the changes


Niebart – why is it important for Chair to be elected internally? – not official change yet, however in discussion it was decided that because its a more specialized position it should be elected internally as a closed committee

Chair- are you still committed to changing the elected positions as well? – yes

Zibell Motions to change 6 to 7 members on board selected by NOMs board (8:12PM)


Niebart: thinks is is a good idea…


Zibell motions to strike the last clause (3.077H)…motion carries (8:17PM)

XVI. Roll call

Live Blog: Badger Partnership Forum

March 29, 2011

To inform students of the implications of the New Badger Partnership, ASM members are presenting information in room 6203 of Social Sciences. They will focus particularly on Chapter 37, which gives UW-Madison students the right to shared governance. Shared governance committees with student representatives make decisions across campus on issues like diversity, safety and academics.

Download the Powerpoint Presentation here.

6:05 p.m.

Sarah Neibart: This will be purely information. If you have questions, we can try to answer them at the end.

Sam Seering: I am the vice chairman for state affairs for the legislative affairs committee in ASM. I’m going to give you an overview of Chapter 37 as it currently stands. Shared governance is currently in statute as 36.09.5. It is now copied verbatim into the new 37.03, “so shared governance is fully kept in the new model of UW-Madison as a public authority.”

Chapter 37 takes away the connection between reduction in state funding and tuition increases. From what I’ve heard, the Madison Initiative for Undergraduates will continue at least through next year.

The Board of Trustees, which sets tuition, will have 21 members as follows:

  • 11 appointed by the governor (7 must be alumni, 1 Board of Regent member, 1 member of the agriculture industry, 9 at-large)
  • 2 appointed by faculty
  • 1 appointed by non-faculty staff
  • 1 appointed by students
  • 2 appointed by WAA
  • 2 appointed by WARF
  • 2 appointed by UW-Foundation.

Chapter 37 also creates a new personnel system. It must be separate and distinct from the current system under Chapter 230 of state statute.

Student discrimination policy is basically copied from the current discrimination policy.

Chapter 37 provides funding for programs to recruit and retain minority and disadvantaged students.

The statute says the Board of Trustees shall provide tuition remission under the same standards as are currently in place.

An accountability report must be prepared every biennium by the board of trustees, looking at services provided and how the finances of the university are working.

Another very good provision is the ability to participate in purchasing consortiums, like the big ten purchasing consortium.

All employees will no longer be considered state employees, but university employees. But the employees would still participate in state pension and health care plans.

Funding for the university will be decreased by 13%.

That’s my overview. Now I’ll open it to questions.

  • Brigham Schmuhl: How are alumni defined on the board of trustees?
  • Seering: My understanding is they have to have graduated from UW-Madison.
  • Brigham Schmuhl: Is there a way to amend Chapter 37 or strengthen shared governance?
  • Melissa Hanley: I would say the best way to go about strengthening it would be to work through the board of trustees, rather than trying to go through the whole legislative process. I think we’ll have more access to the board.
  • Brigham Schmuhl: Would faculty be able to use collective bargaining on their health care and pensions?
  • Seering: I don’t know the complete answer to that, but I know that they will be able to bargain over wages.
  • Student: We hear concerns about UW-Madison being separated from the other UW campuses. Public authority is a really ambiguous term, but now that I’ve read more about the plan for public authority, I question why we don’t propose public authority status for the entire UW System.
  • Seering: We’ve never heard an explanation about why they’re not looking into public authority status for the rest of the system. The Wisconsin Idea Partnership is arguing for flexibility for the entire UW System. I don’t think Walker has taken a stance on this at this point because he talks about flexibilities for individual universities.
  • Neibart: Have other institutions asked for public authority status?
  • Seering: Other university have asked for flexibilities that the New Badger Partnership provides, but they haven’t asked for public authority status. The UW System will be presenting their budget to Joint Finance Committee this Thursday. I would definitely expect a discussion of the Wisconsin Idea Partnership verses the Badger Partnership at that meeting.
  • Student: Is there any concern in ASM leadership about moving forward with Chapter 37 in this political climate, and this creating a bigger problem for UW-Madison? Has ASM endorsed the New Badger Partnership?
  • Williams: There are definitely concerns, and we’re trying to address what we can in terms of the statutory language. ASM has not taken a stance on it, but we did put out a series of principles that we have mostly seen carried through. We had included something about collective bargaining that was done in a different manner, but there’s the possibility of establishing those.
  • Brigham Schmuhl: How do we know the 7 alumni on the board will do a good job? There are at least seven assholes that graduate from here every year. What oversight is there?
  • Seering: They all have term limits. Initially, some are appointed for a year, some for two years on staggered terms.
  • Ellen Leedle: Give me the worst case scenario.
  • Seering: The university doesn’t turn on a dime. We won’t all the sudden stop and change directions to something else. There will be a process to go through. The Board will probably review every system policy, which could take two years.
  • Hanley: Worst case scenario could come in a number of facets. There’s a lot of detail involved in Chapter 37 and a lot of things that could go wrong. We’re no longer officially part of system. Could we technically see all our agreements with other universities wiped out? We could, but that’s not likely to happen. Administrators are reviewing all of these now, so if there are certain things that we need to see protected, we need to take those to administrators now. And I think ASM is the body to do it. “If students have concerns, they should bring those to us now. I don’t think we’re going to see a disaster of epic proportions, but if we don’t watch what’s happening things could get lost in the mess of it all.”
  • Leedle: The feasibility of transfer between campuses is getting progressively more difficult. Even if the transfer policy is there in writing, in practice it’s not. They would probably lose credits and have to stay more time. The language is there; the practice is not.
  • Erik Paulson: The transfer policy is already a UW policy, not a system policy, so that probably wouldn’t be any different.
  • Neibart: Something else to note: Everything that was primarily on UW property or UW owned are our property. All the paperwork is being transferred, and people have been working very hard on that.
  • Leedle: I see the NBP as yes, we’re going to get all these new flexibilities. Look over here while we do shady things over here. How do you think the current regent policy is outdated and how easy is it to change it?
  • Seering: Some regent policy is recent, but some of it is since the beginning of system. There is stuff to review. Changing regent policies is a matter of going through the committee work, having it proposed at a full meeting and having them vote on it.
  • Student: Do we have a tuition cap?
  • Seering: The way the board of regents sets tuition is by analyzing the cost to continue, seeing how much the state funding, and then using the difference as the amount that tuition can be increased. Differential increases are extra, and must be voted on. So there is that cap based on cost to continue, but that cap is removed under Chapter 37.
  • Student: I’m out-of-state. UW-Madison has to admit a certain amount of in-state students, right?
  • Seering: Yes, 75% with an exemption for Minnesota students.
  • Student: How urgent is this? When do they want to push Chapter 37? What’s the timeline?
  • Seering: The timeline of the NBP is now linked to the state budget. Thursday UW System presents their budget. UW-Madison’s budget will be proposed at the same time. The next two weeks are public hearings across the state. After that, Joint Finance begins to go through the 1600-page document line by line to analyze the budget. It’s going to be quite a process, but I’m hearing that the budget will be passed before July 1. The enactment of Chapter 37 is slated for July 1, and the board would be enacted then.
  • Paulson: How will we appoint that student? What will we do on July 1?
  • Williams: There’s been a lot of talk– elections, appointments, maybe a position within ASM. We don’t know how to do that yet.
  • Johnson: We might have the chair of ASM serve in that position until someone can be elected for that position because it would be really difficult to do an election or appointment process over the summer. We could develop a system for choosing someone over the summer while someone is sitting in the interim position, and then be ready to go in September.
  • Neibart: What I’m thinking is this position should be elected by students. This person will be representing students on this campus. Of course we don’t have the biggest turnout on elections and that’s a problem because students should have a say. Until we can do that outreach I’m not sure if appointing them through elections will be the best thing, but in my mind it’s the most idealistic.
  • Johnson: At other schools that do a popularly elected president, candidates usually spend thousands of dollars on their own campaign. That definitely prices people out. I’m not sure if we want those conditions on our campus for this.
  • Hanley: There are so many counterpoints to every argument. It seems like it will be an amalgamation of a lot of things. It’s not going to be perfect starting out, but I think the important part is we’ll have the ability to change it as we go. ASM is considered the shared governance unit of students, so ASM can change the policy for appointing the member.
  • Student: If some rich greek kid did get the post, it wouldn’t be all that different than American politics anyway. I have a proposal for you. Have you seen Mad Max and the Thunderdome? We could erect a Thunderdome and possible candidates could rage it out in the Thunderdome.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please contact your representatives!

Live Blog: ASM’s “Silent” Session

March 23, 2011

Hello All,
So lasts week’s live blog let’s just say…left much to be desired, so I’ve decided to try a different approach for this week. I am posting the full agenda for the meeting. As the night progresses I will fill in the agenda pieces as they are touched on. Hope this makes the blog easier for you to read and for me to write 🙂 Enjoy!

I. Roll call (9:38 PM): Secretary Cody Ostenson calls roll

II. Announcements: Chair Nichols advises people to file their reports. Also applications for Nominations Board are up, as of today there has only been on application. So if you are interested sign up!

III. Removal or impeachment of Representatives, filling of vacancies in the Student
Council and swearing in of new Representatives: NONE

IV. Open Forum (9:43PM):

1. Adam Brobinder not a UW Student comes to speak about a policy that the university will hopefully take on to help American sign language for various languages. It will be a good opportunity for UW students. McBurney is already trying to pass this legislation and is hoping for support from ASM


Rep. Melissa Hanely: thinks this is a great idea offers shared governance and university affairs committee as good groups to seek out to help with this policy –> moves to contact both chairs to work with the McBurney Center

Rep. Sarah Neibert: would you be willing to come to a meeting on Monday for university affairs

*Adam: yes

2. Representatives for  Intercultural Night come to discuss the event and explain why the need grant money. The goal of this event is to  promote diversity on campus. This event gives intercultural groups on campus an opportunity to talk about their different cultures. They are incurring extra fees from the Union in addition to costs for printing and paper. They are trying to design their own fliers and posters, and need ASM grant money for such costs.


Rep Diaz: have you applied for any other events

* reps: yes, however we were denied, and have been actively trying to get new places to get grants from

Rep Hanely: you mentioned you received some money from ISS, what are you doing with those funds

*we have other events that we host throughout the year. the money that we get from ISS is up to our discretion and we will be using it for our other events

3. Rep. Sarah Niebart: just got back from Rwanda, thanking ASM for the grant money for Hillel which took the group there. Also first town hall meeting coming up March 29th 6-8 PM! Also somewhat disappointed in council who did not invite people to the town hall meeting or pass out fliers


4. Wisperg President Rashi: gives update on Wisperg clean up day. Energy service group visited schools in Green Bay, Racine and Waukesha and educated over 300 students on conserving and using energy. Still working on bottle water contracts on campus…trying to make huge visibility display on Bascom for this Friday, so check it out!


5. Rep. Diaz: talks about his Latin fraternity and upcoming events


V. Adoption of the Agenda:

Rep. Beemsterboer would like to add “Intercultural Night” and “Lambda Theta Phi” legislation to the table


Rep. Johnson would like to table items 7-11

*Rep Hanley: haven’t we tabled items for the past few meetings

Rep. Hilliard would like to Move 12A to item 14C…time sensitive and needs to be addressed immediately

PASSES (10:00PM)

Chair Williams calls for strong support from student council body to reach out to students in regards to the New Badger Partnership. People are asking what members of ASM think, so there needs to be feedback from constituents

*Rep Niebart: I have actually recieved criticism from other student governments for ASM not taking a bigger stance on this issue, so people need to start thinking about his

*Rep Hanely: is that our intent? to take a stance?

Williams: That is not MY intent, however we should have some sort of platform that we can take to the capitol..plans to break council into 2 or 3 segments next week and discuss this issue more in depth.


a. 17-0323-02 SACGB Composition Change -Chair Zibell: certain limitations to running a building within the confines of student gov’t. thinking of way to reform SAC board…needs a small working group to run the building. The new composition is 6 members including the chair, one from student council, one person from student print, someone from the front desk and SSFC. some friendly amendments will be added next meeting. (10:10PM)



XIII. Old Business:
a. 17-0302-02 Student Judiciary Precedent – Rep. Kate Fifield make us follow our own rules, assist new justices and work with old cases rather than form new opinions. Asks you to pass this legislation



Rep. Niebart: this is a very important legislation to pass


Intercultural Night:
Beemsterboer: this is a good event and I see no reason why we cannot grant them the funds


Lambda Theta Phi:

Chair Williams ask that Rep. Diaz not be a sponsor for this event because he is involved with the group.

Rep. Beemsterboer: based on what they are requesting, and the fact that they will not only be screening the movie, but bringing in the director to talk about his vision, they feel like this request is reasonable


Rep. Niebart: where will this movie be screened

* Rep Diaz: the Kohl Center and the other screening is to be announced at this moment

VI. Reading and Approval of the Minutes:

XI.  Special Orders:

XII. Introduction of New Legislation:
a. 17-0323-01 LGBT CC Day of Silence – Rep. Hilliard asks ASM to support this event. They have 10 busses coming in the year and hoping to make it the biggest Day of Silence on the UW campus to date



Too many people talking to quickly! Essentially, this is a very important event. If ASM should pass this legislation the council needs to show solidarity in supporting the event.



XVI. Roll call: Adjourning roll call taken by Secretary Cody Ostenson

Live Blog: Candidate Q&A

March 23, 2011

Candidates for ASM Student Council and SSFC are taking questions from students tonight in 4151 Grainger Hall. There are about 25 candidates here and about 20 people in the audience.

There are 29 Council seats and five SSFC seats up for election. More information about the Spring Election is here. Information about the candidates is here.

Candidates have been divided into groups that will answer predetermined questions, and each candidate will be able to answer three questions. Then the candidates will take questions from the audience.

7:05 PM

Question: How will you ensure students work together?

  • Mitch: Everyone will have different opinions, but we can talk about things until things until they work out.
  • Tom Templeton: It’s about developing respect for your colleagues, so it helps to be working together outside of formal meetings and building relationships.
  • Olivia W: It’s important to really get to know the people you work with. Opinions and criticisms are important because they let everyone see different perspectives.
  • Sam Seering: We have to cultivate trust and respect by working on issues that are fairly agreed upon first. So when you come to a controversial issue, you have the ability to work through those issues together.

Question: What are the biggest challenges this university faces?

  • Jonny K: I think the biggest challenges are different funding mechanisms coming through the university. I think having students express all their viewpoints and concerns is huge. Right now I feel like students don’t have a great mechanism to share their opinions. Student Council should be that mechanism.
  • Hannah S: In addition to funding issues, a challenge is getting students to realize that these are important and work together on them.
  • Dan S: I think the biggest challenge is getting students aware of the challenges and voicing their opinions.
  • Germain L: Funding and fiscal issues are always important, but we should reach out to people and get them involved and see how they think we should resolve this.
  • Andy L: Badger Partnership and state budget are big issues. Outreach with the students and the community as a whole would be a good issue, making sure we’re on common ground with the city and community.
  • Zach Ivins: Two main problems are inclusivity and student participation. To help inclusivity we can create an open environment where students can talk and not feel like they will be judged. Student participation goes hand in hand with this. Once people feel comfortable they’ll start joining committees. We have to make sure shared governance is strong.

Question: How do you plan to improve diversity efforts on this campus?

  • Katie L: We need to get out there and I think social media is a big way to get people together, reaching out to different communities to get them to come together.
  • Kayla L: Diversity’s a huge issue on this campus, and something that Madison has prided itself on but there’s still a lot of room for improvement. We need to create a more inclusive environment where people can talk about their identity and we can have learning exchanges.
  • Leland P: We need to make sure there is financial aid to make up tuition increases to make sure everyone can attend UW-Madison.
  • Nikolas M: If I’m elected on ASM, I’m going to go into every student group space including students of color, going into safe spaces and getting our name out there.
  • Michelle J: We need to make sure our university is accessible by increasing financial aid. I also want to physically go out to meet with different groups. On ASM, yes media is important, but personal relationships are really important. As an ASM representative, that’s really important for us to do.

Question: If elected, what kind of change do you hope to create, and how would you go about doing this?

  • Allie G: I think ASM does a pretty good job of giving students services, but ASM could also empower students and make sure that students are involved in decision-making at all institutional levels. I would help make a better outreach plan and make sure to further engage students.
  • Dan Posca: I think all of ASM should be working to tackle diversity issues, and including student groups in everything ASM does and getting a wider range or perspectives to bring back to ASM and incorporate in decision making. I think ASM needs to become more open– not just having office hours but actually going to other group meetings.
  • Amir F: If I was elected, I would use the power to change some of the bigger problems facing this university– diversity, safety, scholarship, tuition, but also getting people not involved in ASM to work with ASM.
  • Beth Huang: I agree with what has been said about increasing outreach– going to students instead of having students coming to us. I also think we need to bolster shared governance on this campus. Students need to go to the faculty senate to foster shared governance committees. We need to be able to start our own committees, like a sustainability committee. Also we need to use shared governance processes in a way that isn’t simply advisory.
  • Bryan P: The most important thing is to make students believe they have a stake in the future of the university, get students involved and get their students out there. Have hearings, petitions, anything that can make students feel like they can have an impact.

Next up: SSFC Candidates

Question: Why do you want to be a member of the SSFC?

  • Dan T: Right now I feel like the body lacks communication with the GSSF groups it provides funding to. I think there’s been a wasted opportunity with the accountability liaison to improve this communication. We need to fight as a body for more ability to decide non-allocables.
  • Ellie R: I think there’s a lack of communication with the students about where there seg fees go. I want to get that communication going because I think it’s important for students to know.
  • Sarah Neibart: I realize the responsibility of knowing where my seg fees go and I want to make sure there going to the right places for all students.
  • Megan J: Most people don’t know where seg fees are going and I want to make students aware of where they are going.
  • Matt Manes: I don’t really care if people know about where their seg fees go, but I want to work to keep the bill as absolutely low as possible.
  • Daniel G: I agree with Matt– the information is available for students. My reason for running is that we have the power to lower seg fees.
  • Joe V.: I agree with Matt and Daniel– the info is available but for years the number has just been going up and I would like to do my part to turn the table and bring it back down.
  • Tito: My main purpose is to make sure we are distributing the money well and make sure student orgs are getting the money they need to benefit the students.

Now back to Council candidates.

Question: What role do you think ASM plays on this campus?

  • Nneka: When I become a special student, I won’t be able to register until after everyone else. Another thing is financial aid is not readily accessible for all special students and I think ASM needs to do something about these concerns so students know we’re here for them.
  • Mitch: I really have no idea. I get the SSFC part, but as for the rest of it, as someone who spends a good amount of time walking around campus, have no idea what you guys do, which is why I’m running. I’d like to get inside and see how the sausage is made, if the sausage is in fact made.
  • Sam Seering: We should exert our full power of our control of seg fees and reign in the allocable and non-allocables on this campus. We need to use shared gov to work with admin and push policies that are good for students, like attendance policies and alcohol safety via education.
  • Olivia: I would have to say Mitch brings up a good point. A lot of people don’t know what ASM does. I always saw emails from ASM but I didn’t see people from ASM. I had to do a lot of reading to figure it out. I think ASM should be a bridge between administration and the student body.
  • Tom Templeton: I generally take a more limited scope of the what the role is– advocacy, service and membership. Advocacy being lobbying on behalf of students, services being through SSFC, and membership being through shared governance.

Question: How much impact do you think you will have as a potential student leader?

  • Zach: By myself, I can’t do much. But by outreaching to students I can get students behind me and make a bigger impact.
  • Germain: We need to get the opinions of people we’re representing and represent people’s opinions and try to implement stuff they want.
  • Andy L: I’m a university special student, and I think that will help give me another perspective. Having served on non-profit boards of directors, that helps give me experience to give more of an impact.
  • Hannah S: I think I have impact on Council in terms of ideas of opinions I bring. Council has the potential to make a huge impact as long as students are aware of what we’re doing.
  • Johnny K: I already am a proven student leader– have been since middle school. I would like to continue that and bring my expertise to ASM. I’d like to recruit people within the L&S school and bring them to the table to discuss issues on campus.
  • Dan S: I can promise to attend every meeting, which is saying a lot. I have my feet set in college and I intend to reach my goals. I want to educate students so they’re all on the same page in terms of issues and policy.

Question: What qualities do you think a candidate needs in order

  • Kayla L: To have courage in convictions but to also compromise with other students, and to have compassion.
  • Leland: You need to strike a balance between standing up for what you believe in and working with others.
  • Michelle J: I’ve heard a lot of people say students just don’t care, and I think that’s selling students short. As ASM, we should make them realize why they should care. What’s been intimidating for me is all these confusing convoluted explanations of ASM. We need to translate this to what makes sense to students. Instead of expecting students to come to spaces like open forum, we need to go to spaces where they feel comfortable.
  • Nikolas: ASM needs to be a sort of chameleon, exersizing people skills and working hard outside of the caucus room to get to know people, and then coming into the caucus room and putting their beliefs into action.
  • Katie L: Knowledge and communication.

Question: How would you explain ASM to a fellow student uninvolved in student government?

  • Dan Posca: This is something I’ve been trying to do for four years. The best way I can describe it is that we are your version of government. You elect us to work with faculty and staff to represent your interests, uphold shared governance and make sure your money is not wasted on campus.
  • Allie G: I think ASM is supposed to empower students across campus on all campus issues that students are affected by– making sure they have the same access ASM is given to administration, to the funding streams that SSFC deals with. We are elected to lead these things, but it’s important we’re not just playing government but empowering students and going to student groups.
  • Beth Huang: I think ASM is students’ institutional voice on campus. As the most powerful student organization on campus, we have the ear of a lot of people, at the university, state, city and federal level. It’s really important for us to represent the diversity of opinions that students feel. It’s a great outlet for students to plug into to voice how they feel. It is your voice.
  • Amir: I would tell students that ASM is the premiere student advocacy group on campus, run for and by students. If they have a pressing issue, they should go to the SAC, talk to a representative and have their voice heard.
  • Bryan: We’re here to make sure the student voice is heard. We’re not just running to see our name in the paper; we’re running because we want to make campus better for everyone.

Back to the SSFC group:

Question: With the current economy and tuition potentially rising, what is your view on seg fees?

  • Sarah N: Every year tuition has the potential to rise, and we always want to lower seg fees but it’s not always realistic. We have to make sure student organizations get the money they need when their services help all students.
  • Megan J: It’s not always possible to lower costs, but sometimes they’re out of our control so we have to have realistic goals. We need to keep funding for needed services like tutoring and safety.
  • Daniel G: My primary objective is cutting seg fees. I don’t buy a line that we can’t lower seg fees. I’m going into this to find a way to cut seg fees.
  • Matt Manes: We’re all screwed. They’re going up, and they’re going up by a lot and there’s not a whole lot you can do about it unless you want to go knocking down buildings.
  • Joe V: My goal is to determine what students really do use, and if you have to pay for it, know what you’re paying for and use it.
  • Ellie: I think there are things we are paying for that we could cut. Especially with tuition rising, seg fees need to be capped. Students pay three times as much for bus passes as they do for student orgs, which I think is ridiculous. I think we should look at things students aren’t using and cut those things.
  • Tito: I want to look at the seg fees we pay and see where they’re going and make sure they’re benefiting students.
  • Dan T: Seg fees rise because of the non-allocable budget, and because SSFC has not fought for the ability to control this budget. It’s unfair to blame GSSF groups for rising seg fees.

Now time for audience questions. SSFC candidates first.

Question: With budget cuts and rising prices, how will you provide services to students while keeping spending low?

  • Ellie: We have to figure out what organizations and services students are using the most and they should get the bulk of the budget.
  • Megan: The lesser services might need to get cut to keep seg fees low.
  • Matt Manes: In terms of services provided, personally I’m spearheading the creation of a student legal services center.
  • Tito: We need to review the importance of what we do spend.
  • Joe V: We need to figure out how to get the most services we can out of the least amount of money.
  • Daniel T: It would be unwise to cut funding to GSSF groups because that’s such a small portion of seg fees.
  • Sarah: I would not recommend cutting GSSF funding. I think we need to put pressure on the non-allocables to be more transparent, like the Union.
  • Daniel G: We have to go into this with the intention to cut in the face of tuition hikes.

Back to Council candidates.

Question: How do you plan to improve outreach to students?

  • Sam Seering: Getting into contact with individual students and student organizations. Go to the unions and dorms and talk about what ASM is doing.
  • Nneka: Outreach means face to face. It doesn’t mean emails. I’ve got three ways: 1. Virtual office hours. 2. Streaming ASM Council meetings. Her time ran out.
  • Olivia: I think student involvement ASM will rise through face to face contact with people. People don’t read emails.
  • Mitch: You could try to talk to people when they’re trying to do things, but that’s annoying. If you go the Jehovah Witness route talk directly to people who are involved with student orgs, they’re more likely to give a shit and listen to what you have to say.

What are the most important effects of the Badger Partnership?

  • Zach: It will give us a lot more freedom, but we have to make sure students are heard in the process and fight to make sure students have a voice on decision-making committees.
  • Dan S: I think the flexibility will keep UW competitive in what it does. What students want is as much as they can get, and the Badger Partnership can hopefully do that.
  • Germain: We could be a strong university with this, with more flexibility. We can get the name of the university out there and get diversity here.
  • Andy L: I have mixed feelings. One concern I have is that it could create two separate budgets for the UW System and the school. The flexibility is the best thing about it.
  • Johnny K: I think Madison has a lot of unique needs compared to the rest of the system and we need to remain competitive in the Big Ten. We need to recruit the best and the new bp will allow us to do that.
  • Hannah: It will keep us competitive, keep us on top and attract students. We just need to make sure we can be part of the decision-making process.

Question: What are the opinions of the student body and what do we want?

  • Leland: Students are involved, progressive and diverse.
  • Michelle J: I don’t know all the ideas of the student body, and that’s why I need to go out and here them. We need to recognize that we each have one unique perspective and we need to go out and listen to students. I think we need to have mandatory diversity training for ASM.
  • Katie: Every single person wants something different, and we need to communicate with each other through open forums.
  • Kayla L: The beauty of this university is there’s ideas across the spectrum. Students all want what’s best for their education.
  • Nikolas: I think a lot of the student body is pretty apathetic to what’s happening. They just want to get their degree and get out of here. The idea is to channel those that are in to creating change and bringing those students to the table.

Question: With the high likelihood that Madison will become a public authority, ASM will have more ability to change university policy. What two policy changes would you push for at this university?

  • Andy: I would push for student involvement in the community. I worked on the Badger Volunteer program and that was a great way to see what problems are facing the university.
  • Allie: One is making sure financial aid increases with any tuition increases and make sure sticker shock isn’t turning people away. We also need to make sure there is more student representatives on the board of trustees.
  • Dan Posca: Increase financial aid, and increase shared governance. I think shared gov is more attainable and I think this is a great opportunity to get more shared gov power.
  • Beth Huang: Financial aid and student representation. We do have an opportunity with this restructuring to get greater student representation and expand shared gov to a higher level.
  • Bryan: We’re all here to get an education so the two most important things are keeping education affordable, and keeping up the quality of the education that you can use for the rest of your life.

Q&A over. Time to try the new Babcock Ice Cream flavor: ASM Student GovernMint.

To find the full names of the candidates, check out the candidate matrix.