The SA’s slippery slope
Campaign rules on criticism not enforced fairly
By Chris Walker
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
At issue within this meeting were the effects of outside writers who voiced disapproval with the SUFC-run government. One complaint was filed based upon a Facebook posting made by ASAP member Josh Simon directing readers to a blog site called “Practical Panthers.”
Before I begin, it should be known to all reading these words that I am writing under my own will and volition, that I have not been contacted by anyone to write for them and am under no pressure whatsoever to express the views I am about to convey.
I write such a disclaimer because failure to do so could result in the expulsion of a political party from the ballot in the upcoming Student Association (SA) election (if they haven’t already been removed by the time this article is published). Any criticism made by outside parties against Students United For Change (SUFC), the current majority political party within the SA, is grounds for penalization against the opposing political party, Achieving Student Action Through Progress (ASAP).
In fact, a recent meeting between these two parties and Independent Elections Commissioner Dan Bahr has set clear precedent that any criticism before the official start of campaigning (April 9) is a punishable offence, even if that criticism is made by an individual or group unaffiliated with (or even, as we will see, ideologically opposed to) any political party within the SA.
At issue within this meeting were the effects of outside writers who voiced disapproval with the SUFC-run government. One complaint was filed based upon a Facebook posting made by ASAP member Josh Simon directing readers to a blog site called “Practical Panthers,” which had posted material criticizing SUFC members as well as questioning how independent Dan Bahr really could be.
SUFC filed a complaint, and demerit points were assessed to ASAP for violating SA campaign laws that restrict those running for office from making slanderous remarks as well as prematurely campaigning for student government (official campaigning cannot begin until April 9), despite Simon neither making nor using the post for campaign purposes.
As we all know, Facebook allows you to make comments onto items you post onto your profile. Josh Simon’s comment referenced a blog posting made by Mark Lang, the author of Practical Panthers, criticizing Hillary Clinton for staying in the presidential race.
In other words, Josh Simon’s Facebook posting had nothing to do with SA, SUFC or ASAP. Lang isn’t even likely to support ASAP this election year; he is, as he describes it, “fiscally conservative,” a term that the SUFC prides itself on being.
Nevertheless, a complaint was made and sustained by IEC Dan Bahr, who told ASAP members to “stop the slanderous marks” and campaign only after April 9. Bahr was unconvinced of ASAP’s non-involvement in the Facebook posting, which didn’t even reference the SA elections in the first place.
This incident in itself creates bad precedent. But it wasn’t the only complaint that was brought up within the meeting. A letter to the editor published in the UWM Leader and written by Jay Burseth allegedly used libelous words against the SA and SUFC, and questioned the validity of appointing Bahr to the Independent Elections Commissioner spot despite him being a member of SUFC and a big part of their campaign last year.
Again, ASAP was found to have violated campaign bylaws within the SA despite their not being associated with Burseth, who is a member of Students for a Democratic Society, a left-wing group here on campus.
Perhaps because of their “ideological ties,” it was assumed by IEC Bahr that ASAP sought Burseth out to write this editorial against SUFC, an assumption that was made despite the absence of sufficient evidence. When this was brought up within the meeting, Bahr simply stated that the “preponderance of the evidence” forced him to take action against ASAP.
But preponderance of the evidence requires a majority of the fault to be ASAPs, of which Burseth is not a member. As Julio Guerrero, vice presidential candidate for ASAP, stated, “I don’t control the decisions that [Jay Burseth] makes, I don’t make decisions for him.” Bahr dismissed this comment, using heresay when asking Guerrero about his contact with Burseth (who Guerrero admits he says hi to in the hallway from time to time, but doesn’t regularly converse with him).
When Bahr is told that Burseth is not affiliated with ASAP in any way whatsoever, the IEC simply repeats over objections, “Preponderance of the evidence! Preponderance of the evidence!” and issues his ruling.
To Bahr’s credit, it should be noted that he has penalized his own party on violations that they have made regarding this election year. And it should also be noted that the Commissioner has kept the elections process more than open, releasing information when requested by anyone who makes a formal request.
The question of Bahr’s loyalties, however, come about when passing judgment on ASAP in regards to outside writers. Do criticisms amount to campaigning, even if done by non-affiliated persons? Does this article you are reading amount to illegal actions taken by ASAP simply because I have met Guerrero?
Criticism of the SUFC – the ruling party within the SA – may be just that: criticism of those within government. It is the duty of newspapers, citizens who write letters to the editors and even bloggers to note criticism when they can.
If there is evidence that ASAP members sought Burseth or Lang out and told them to write on their behalf, then I can see where violations would have occurred. Bahr would simply be doing his job by penalizing the group for campaigning before the appropriate campaign time.
However, even the “preponderance of the evidence” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans when you look at the facts: ASAP is neither affiliated with Burseth nor the Practical Panthers blog site.
It sets bad precedent when an elections commissioner applies demerit points to a group simply because there is criticism by an outside party over the way that group’s opponents govern. Lang is ideologically at odds with ASAP, but the “preponderance of the evidence” punishes the group just the same, despite the lack of evidence to support the claim that SUFC made against ASAP.
The same is done to Burseth’s letter to the editor regarding SUFC and Bahr’s ability to remain neutral. Simply because Burseth shares the same ideology as many members of ASAP doesn’t implicate ASAP of any wrongdoing.
The penalization of ASAP by Bahr over matters of outside writings is wrong; all demerit points related to such outlandish claims should be removed from ASAP’s totals.
> Comments
RS on Apr 07, 2008 at 12:09 AM:
"The penalization of ASAP by Bahr over matters of outside writings is wrong; all demerit points related to such outlandish claims should be removed from ASAP’s totals."
Don't hold your breath.
SUFfoCation on Apr 07, 2008 at 12:45 AM:
This a very well written editorial. I agree 100% and think that the monopoly that SUFC is trying to hold over the UWM students is preposterous.
UWM Alum on Apr 07, 2008 at 06:01 AM:
I would have to disagree...this is not a very well written editorial. The structure is basically - pretend that you have no opinion or vested interst in this election (even though it is obvious you have some type of vendetta against SUFC)complain, whine, complain, whine, admit that this election has been open and fair, complain, whine. When will you learn that the students do not want complaining and whining about the incumbant party? They want you to talk about ISSUES. Why don't you write about an ISSUE on campus and how the different parties propose making this campus better?
I challenge the UWM POST and ASAP to only talk about the issues instead of whining about SUFC. Maybe, ASAP (aka Independent Party, aka Milwaukee Panter Party) you may win an election one year?!?!
mugga on Apr 07, 2008 at 09:35 AM:
so I think it's pretty funny how the post is giving free face-recognition to ASAP by publishing a picture of their ticket, but not a picture of SUFC's candidate. although their VP may have turned down or not responded to a request for an interview, they should have still included a picture of the SUFC presidential candidate to balance the representation of parties with facial recognition.
Photo on Apr 07, 2008 at 01:54 PM:
He broke the camera.
UWM Student on Apr 07, 2008 at 03:10 PM:
The problem here isn't that SUFC didn't get enough violations or ASAP was penalized too harshly, its that there exists an unconstitutional ban on political speech at all.
The SA's rules on when you can start campaigning are a clear violation on the 1st amendment. It is one thing to make the parties account for all their campaign funds and quite another to ban them from speaking until the SA says so. If this was heard in a real court (not that sham of a student court), the SA's rules would be made null in a second.
The SA is NOT an autonomous government body. The SA, technically speaking, is a part of the UW system. Shared governance allows for its charter but it must adhere to all the rules that the rest of the UW system does. And since the UW system is part of the Wisconsin state government it must adhere to all state laws too. Thats why the SA is bound by state law when spending seg fee money. This is why, technically, the SA must also adhere to open records laws (tell us who went on the Feb. trip SA, you have no choice in the matter).
UWM Alum on Apr 07, 2008 at 04:22 PM:
Just file an open records request with the University then...see what their answer is OR better yet, ask the SAO--they are ALWAYS more than willing to willie nillie give out students names and violate FERPA. Well, you actually have a pretty good shot at both because the University picks and chooses when to follow and when to violate FERPA. I suspect that you will have NO PROBLEM AT ALL getting UWM's legal department to release all of the names, current addresses, and social security numbers.
joppe on Apr 07, 2008 at 04:41 PM:
thanks rob.
the consituition of the united states of america on Apr 07, 2008 at 05:00 PM:
the first amendment? anyone? anyone?
UWM Student on Apr 07, 2008 at 05:54 PM:
-UWM Alum
Just so you can get it right next time (try a google search next time): http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html
"Schools may disclose, without consent, 'directory' information such as a student's name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, honors and awards, and dates of attendance..."
android87 on Apr 08, 2008 at 01:35 AM:
Overall, I find it hilarious that people are so hung up on all of this. If you think UWM is the place to start a political idea you are dead wrong.
UWM Alum on Apr 08, 2008 at 07:31 AM:
UWM Student -
You seem to be skipping over one word in that sentence -- "SCHOOLS". The SA is not a SCHOOL. You need to request that information from the SCHOOL.
Here is a quote from an article written by the post in 2006 regarding the release of student's names... According to Watson, if the names of the applicants “are within the exclusive possession of the Student Association, they are not subject to Wisconsin Public Records Law, as the SA is “a separate legal entity from UWM.” “My interpretation of Wisconsin Public Records Law — and the UWM Office of Legal Affairs and UW System Office of General Counsel agree — is that Student Association records are not subject to Wisconsin Public Records Law because SA does not fit the definition of an ‘authority’ as provided in Wis. Stat. 19.32(1),” Watson said in an e-mail.
So, UWM Student...your above little "analogy" of how the SA is technically part of this and technically part of that is completely incorrect. While it is important that the SA be transparent, it should not be at the expense of personal information. If it is not clear whether or not the SA should release the names, it is much safer not to. State law does not allow for the SA to use segregated fees to be represented by counsel; therefore, the SA has no way to defend themselves in a sticky situation like this.
As I have watched many SA elections over the years, it is always interesting how political everything gets around March/April. I guarantee you that if it was not election time and you, yourself did not have a stake in this election, you would not even care about this ordeal. If you look at the above quote by Amy in 2006, that article too was written in April. Guess what month it is...April...guess what is just around the corner...the SA election...guess who probably is running against the incumbant party..."UWM Student"...
UWM Student #2 on Apr 08, 2008 at 07:53 AM:
UWM Alum-
You write: "While it is important that the SA be transparent, it should not be at the expense of personal information. If it is not clear whether or not the SA should release the names, it is much safer not to."
Are you saying that the SA could be penalized for releasing the names?
trip on Apr 08, 2008 at 08:45 AM:
maybe they shouldn't take nonUwm Students to conferences with our money.
UWM Student on Apr 08, 2008 at 09:36 AM:
UWM Alum
The administration has been inconsistent over the years as what the SA is. When it comes to the money UWM thinks the SA has to be part of UWM. When it something like open records, something thatwould require work on their part, suddenly the SA is a completely separate body not tied to UWM. In my view the interpretation around the money should be the general case. As a government agency, chartered by WI state statute, is required to adhere to all state laws governing state agencies.
VOTE SUFC!!!! on Apr 08, 2008 at 10:58 AM:
ASAP sucks, vote SUFC!!!!
Oops! Sorry Dan!
UWM Alum on Apr 08, 2008 at 10:58 AM:
UWM Student #2- I am not saying that the SA should be penalized for releasing the names, I am saying that releasing the names may open the flood gate for possible court proceedings against the SA. If the SA President gets a subpoena from the court saying that he/she must release the names, then it is safe for him/her to release the names and then the SA could not get sued. However, for the SA to just release the names would be irresponsible, especially because it seems like some people involved do not want their information released to the public.
Trip- If this is the case, and there is no logical answer to why non-students are going on trips, then I completely agree with you. I do not really know any details on this trip that everyone is talking about. However, I do know that in the past non-UWM students are allowed to attend various events paid for with segregated fees (example - dances, sporting events, etc).
UWM Student- I agree, the UWM administration is EXTREMELY inconsistent. While they are EXTREMELY lazy at times, I actually believe that their picking and choosing of when SA is and and when SA is not part of the university is political. They choose whichever way is in their best interest at that time. Over the years, many students have tried to get an official ruling from the Chancellor to get a definite answer, but nothing is ever put in writing. As you can understand, this makes it EXTREMELY hard for SA officials to decide when to/when not to do something. I am telling you right now, I am not President Grover, but I do see the tough situation he is in. In my honest opinion, his number one priority should be that the SA does not get sued and the safe way to make sure that does not happen is to NOT release the names.
Lazy on Apr 08, 2008 at 11:46 AM:
I didn't know that a Master Plan was considered lazy. Also, its called shared governance and this is very tricky. As long as the SA doesn't release the student IDs, the SA shouldn't have a problem.
UWM Student #2 on Apr 08, 2008 at 12:07 PM:
UWM Alum-
"I am saying that releasing the names may open the flood gate for possible court proceedings against the SA. If the SA President gets a subpoena from the court saying that he/she must release the names, then it is safe for him/her to release the names and then the SA could not get sued. However, for the SA to just release the names would be irresponsible, especially because it seems like some people involved do not want their information released to the public. "
What possible action could result in the names being released? Furthermore, how would it be irresponsible?
UWM Alum on Apr 08, 2008 at 12:37 PM:
The court would actually need to subpoena the SA to release that information. As the President, Robert has two obligations in this situation--1. an obligation to carry out a transparent government; and 2. an obligation to protect the rights of each student, including the right to privacy.
You are right, you can make the argument that President Grover should release the names. But, you can also make the argument that President Grover should not release the names. All I am saying is that the safer route to protect the SA as an organization (which is President Grover's job) is to not release the names. If someone wants to file something in the student court, or even in the "real court" and the SA gets subpoenaed to release the information--then President Grover should release the information.
I really do not want to spend anymore time on this issue. You, as a current student and the current SA need to work all of this out. (I could really care less about this issue, to be very honest) Talking about this on the Post forum is really not doing any good. Good luck to both parties throughout all of this.
UWM Student #2 on Apr 08, 2008 at 12:39 PM:
Alum-
"an obligation to protect the rights of each student, including the right to privacy."
Wrong.
amazing! on Apr 08, 2008 at 12:39 PM:
"maybe they shouldn't take nonUwm Students to conferences with our money"
you are the biggest fricking idiot at UWM. wow. I thought they were all running with ASAP. apparently one got loose. you might want to talk to Scott Dettman, he might consider you for speaker of the senate or something more important, like VP!
all of the students who went to NY were from UWM. guess what, grad school students are UWM students too.
woah!
perhaps the post should begin a policy of investigating all student organizations as vigorously as they do the SA and demand that names be released from them.
The Post... continuing a legacy of poorly-veiled smearing.
What convenient timing as well - VP Voigtlander was interviewed over a month ago.
Hmm... geeee...
Re: UWM Alum on Apr 08, 2008 at 12:43 PM:
"Just file an open records request with the University then...see what their answer is OR better yet, ask the SAO--they are ALWAYS more than willing to willie nillie give out students names and violate FERPA. Well, you actually have a pretty good shot at both because the University picks and chooses when to follow and when to violate FERPA. I suspect that you will have NO PROBLEM AT ALL getting UWM's legal department to release all of the names, current addresses, and social security numbers."
go to the First Year Center and ask for Katie Jesse or Kayla Sweeney. They're great at illegally distributing contact information!
Maybe, they'll even do you a favor and send it out in a mass e-mail... just maybe.
Re amazing on Apr 08, 2008 at 03:56 PM:
All groups should abide by the rules. The Post shouldn't be intimidated not to ask questions. If you can't stand being questioned, then you shouldn't EVER run for Public Office. THIS IS STUDENT GOVERNMENT, NOT UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OUR FEDERAL POLITICIANS ARE MORE CIVIL.
UWM Post Watch on Apr 09, 2008 at 12:05 AM:
Chris - try taking the photo of you and Scott Dettman off Facebook before writing an editorial about this election. What has Scott offered you - a job? Are you planning on being Speaker next year in trade for favorable press coverage, or something?
The Truth Comes Out on Apr 09, 2008 at 06:10 AM:
"Before I begin, it should be known to all reading these words that I am writing under my own will and volition, that I have not been contacted by anyone to write for them and am under no pressure whatsoever to express the views I am about to convey."
So much for that disclaimer!!!!
James on Apr 09, 2008 at 08:43 AM:
"you are the biggest fricking idiot at UWM. wow. I thought they were all running with ASAP. apparently one got loose. you might want to talk to Scott Dettman, he might consider you for speaker of the senate or something more important, like VP!
all of the students who went to NY were from UWM. guess what, grad school students are UWM students too."
Then there shouldn't be a problem with providing the names of the students that went.
woah!
"perhaps the post should begin a policy of investigating all student organizations as vigorously as they do the SA and demand that names be released from them."
Except, of course, SA is an administrative body and a governmental one at that, whereas other student orgs aren't.
Chris Walker on Apr 09, 2008 at 11:00 AM:
I’m unaware of any photograph ever taken of me and Dettman, or any pictures of me and him on Facebook. Indeed, Dettman and I are not even Facebook friends, much less friends in real life (I’ve never met the guy, to tell you the truth), though I did recently join the ASAP group this morning; I also joined the AJ Piwarun for Senator group (I like to be involved in as many political groups as I can, to get a feel for each one before making a decision). Like I stated before, no one campaign came to me to persuade me to write about this subject.
Is it true that I will be voting for one party over the other? Most definitely. But my political affiliations rarely have anything to do with how I criticize the Student Association or their members. Take a look at the history of my writings about SUFC or the SA: it includes criticism over election concerns and the Sedition Act. I rarely make my opinion heard about SA activities outside of a close circle of friends, much less take the time to write an article about the particulars of any bills, acts or orders the SA makes (with exception to constitutional violations).
Has ASAP offered me a job next year? No; in fact, I’m graduating in the spring. Have I met with ASAP members in the past? Yes; I’m friends with many of their members, though these friendships came about through associations outside of student governance. I am not a member of any student political party. I have also met with several SUFC members in the past as well, and even had AJ Piwarun write for the Post a couple of times.
It is discouraging that posters on this website would make such blatantly false claims about me, claiming that I am a pawn for a particular party. While I have met with and talked with various members of the party I plan to support, I also have various contacts within the party I oppose. I challenge whoever posted that comment to post the link of that picture, where Dettman and I are supposedly in the same frame. To my knowledge, it doesn’t exist.
The Truth Comes Out on Apr 09, 2008 at 11:21 AM:
I believe that you really do think that you are unbiased; however, you must look at the facts...every time you say that you know someone in ASAP, you try to cover that up with a statement about SUFC. It is clear, when you say that you're friends with members of ASAP, that you support them. It is not fair to put a disclaimer on an article like the one above and then later state that you're friends with some of the members of one group. You may think that you wrote this balanced, but really you did not and your bias is eminent in this article. So, while it was a genuine effort to think that you're not biased, you are.
Anonymous on Apr 09, 2008 at 11:31 AM:
I think something that needs to be addressed is the fact that a certain email by the ASAP presidential candidate, Scott Dettman, for which he was assessed 100 of the points in question, was not reported by my fellow staffers.
I know for a fact that the news reporters, and even Chris Walker recieved a copy of the email, as I was BCC'd.
The contents of the email SHOULD indeed be reported, because it shows what kind of a person Mr. Dettman really is. He's a loose cannon.
The email is a matter of public record now, as it was involved in an official case where points were given to ASAP. If anyone wants to know the contents of the email, just send an email to either the IEC Dan Bahr, or any of the officers for either political party.
The email contains graphic and colorful language in the subject line about a member of SUFC. Again, I think it's outrageous that it wasn't reported, and I think the students should know about it.
The Truth Comes Out on Apr 09, 2008 at 12:41 PM:
UWM POST = ASAP I will have to say...usually the Post is semi neutral during election time, but not this year. Who is the editor this year? I think much of the issue is that there is no leadership and people seem to be able to write ANYTHING they want, without doing any research.
UWM POST REPORTER- Put the email on this forum!!
The Truth Comes Out on Apr 09, 2008 at 12:41 PM:
UWM POST = ASAP I will have to say...usually the Post is semi neutral during election time, but not this year. Who is the editor this year? I think much of the issue is that there is no leadership and people seem to be able to write ANYTHING they want, without doing any research.
UWM POST REPORTER- Put the email on this forum!!
Anonymous on Apr 09, 2008 at 01:33 PM:
Assessment w/out written complaint #1 The following e-mail was sent to (Daniel V. Bahr) iec.uwm6@gmail.com : by Mr. Dettman. The subject heading using inappropriate language is shown below. This is a violation of IEC Bylaw(s) Article IX Section 1 (A) “up to 500 points for physically or verbally harassing another candidate,” Article IX Section 1 (E) up to 100 points for making slanderous remarks in public or in writing,” and Article IX Section 1 (J) “up to 250 points may be assessed by the commissioner for actions deemed inappropriate.” As a result of this action I am finding Mr. Dettman in violation of each of the three bylaws. However, as it is early in the process and in the sprit of leniency, I am going to limit my assessment of point to 100 against Mr. Dettman’s party, ASAP. Mr. Dettmen later sent an apology for the use of the following prohibited language.
I will forward the original e-mail and apology to the court for its files since points have been assessed and to necessary members of Mr. Dettman’s party who should know the origin of point violations.
“FUCK YOU aj piwaraun!!!!! YOU SUCK AT LIFE
Scott Dettman to me show details Mar 17 (3 days ago) Reply
Name of poster changed to "Anonymous."
UWM Post Board of Directors on Apr 09, 2008 at 02:46 PM:
The name of the poster in the above comment was changed from "UWM Post Reporter" to "Anonymous" because we do not want readers to believe that the comment was written by The UWM Post.
We encourage all posters to use their real names when commenting.
Thank You, The UWM Post Board of Directors
Re: UWM Post Board of Directors on Apr 09, 2008 at 03:00 PM:
How do we know that you are the Board of Directors...and if you are...why don't you answer some of the allegations on here about being so biased in this election?!?!?!
Chris Walker on Apr 09, 2008 at 03:10 PM:
"I believe that you really do think that you are unbiased; however, you must look at the facts...every time you say that you know someone in ASAP, you try to cover that up with a statement about SUFC. It is clear, when you say that you're friends with members of ASAP, that you support them. It is not fair to put a disclaimer on an article like the one above and then later state that you're friends with some of the members of one group. You may think that you wrote this balanced, but really you did not and your bias is eminent in this article. So, while it was a genuine effort to think that you're not biased, you are."
I did state that I have friends in ASAP, and I admit that I probably will be voting for them in the coming election. If that's what you want to hear, then there it is.
However, I never claimed to be unbiased. I'm an Editorial writer...my writings are meant to be biased. What I did claim was that my writings were not inspired, motivated or ordered to be written by any member of any student group, political or otherwise.
Again, I make the point that my writings and criticisms of SUFC stem from constitutional violations or election problems. And I have yet to see the picture of me and Dettman together.
Re: Chris Walker on Apr 09, 2008 at 03:26 PM:
Probably because you deleted it from your facebook account....
Chris Walker on Apr 09, 2008 at 05:16 PM:
Yes. I deleted it from my account because I'm in bed with the party. Right.
I will not stand for these blanket accusations. It is McCarthy-esque in nature, to assume guilt without proof. There never was a picture of me and Dettman together, not that it matters. I cannot say the same, however, of IEC Dan Bahr and members of SUFC. If you are going to accuse me of being in cahoots with ASAP and Scott Dettman without proof, then why not make any criticism of our Independent Elections Commissioner (where proof actually EXISTS)?
"Anonymous" on Apr 09, 2008 at 05:34 PM:
I would like to know why the "UWM Board of Directors" would change the name, writeup a disclaimer response, but refuse to answer the question.
Sitting on a story and not releasing it to the student body is irresponsible journalism.
The Bigger Question on Apr 09, 2008 at 10:43 PM:
Why does SUFC constantly attack the fundamental freedoms of the United States of America set in the U.S. Constitution? They can go to China if they'd like to keep suppressing free speech. That's where the likes of the Sedition Act supporters (Piwarun, Ohler, etc.) and not so Independent Elections Commissioner Bahr belong.
Don't try to make this a Democrat/Republican thing either. They're all mixed in SUFC representing their own narrow interests and attacking anyone who asks questions.
Re: The Bigger Question on Apr 09, 2008 at 10:53 PM:
You hippies did not seem to mind when the Feingold/McCain campaign finance reform laws (2002) were passed which limited the amount of money and the type of ads that could be used in a campaign. Break these laws, you will not only be tossed from the election, you will be fined or tossed in jail. So IEC Bahr actually enforces the bylaws. In reality he has been soft with his assessment of points. You are still on the ballot. Why don't you hippies just stop bitching and run your campaign.
freedom of speech on Apr 09, 2008 at 11:14 PM:
Yeah, the more money you have the bigger the voice you have, that's not freedom of speech that's called stealing someone elses voice.
The Point on Apr 10, 2008 at 01:25 AM:
The Point is that SA is not the only entity that has limits on free speech in elections. Speech is free in America, but it is limited. I would be cited if I were to write an e-mail to the Dean of Students that contained a profanity laced statement. This is a restriction on free speech put in place by the University. SA can also place restrictions on its elections. After all it’s an SA election. Just like the State and Federal government have campaign requirements, so does the SA. Candidates have been sued for slander and liable when ads have gone too far. At times the court system has found in favor of the person bringing the suit. If the IEC chooses to read the bylaws and follow them, then take it up with the people who make laws. I did not hear you far lefty liberals cry when Doyle stacked the state elections board in his favor back in the 06’ election. Dan Bahr will probably vote for SUFC. So what? Show me a bylaw he has broken??? The rules are the same for all candidates. If you don't like the rules then don't run for office. Every one has been aware. Stop Bitching!!
Chris Walker on Apr 10, 2008 at 07:20 AM:
"Dan Bahr will probably vote for SUFC. So what? Show me a bylaw he has broken??? The rules are the same for all candidates. If you don't like the rules then don't run for office."
Dan Bahr has that right, and I don't think anyone is arguing he doesn't. Certainly, the IEC has the right to cast a vote, just as every UWM student has that right. The problem with Bahr being the IEC is that he was not just a part of SUFC, but was highly instrumental in their controversial win last year.
Has he done a fair job so far as IEC? Surprisingly, for the most part he has. However, I take issue with his punishing ASAP because of a Facebook posting that was totally unrelated to the campaign as well as a third party newspaper article whose author has no ties to ASAP.
Are there free speech issues within our student government? Certainly. They should be addressed, either by the student government next year or by students bringing it up to the student government.
My point is this: even when both political parties have adhered to standards of campaign rules within the SA, Dan Bahr's rulings set dangerous precedent - is it now the responsibility of student political parties to make sure that no groups, no newspapers and no individual students bring forth the problems of the current SA to prevent premature campaigning? Without sufficient proof, ASAP shouldn't have been penalized in either case.
Come on on Apr 10, 2008 at 12:03 PM:
“FUCK YOU aj piwaraun!!!!! YOU SUCK AT LIFE"
Just to let you know Scott would cap Aj Piwaraun. So who ever is doing this stop with your lies. Oh and the person from SUFC who posted this stop trying to make Scott look bad.
Re: Come On on Apr 10, 2008 at 12:46 PM:
Would he just cap the "A" or would he cap the "J" too?!?!?
Re: Come On on Apr 10, 2008 at 02:49 PM:
Oh yeah, im sure he would. After all, he's a real student, that works out at the gym. Piwaraun should watch out!
Oh and did I mention he used to play quarterback and throw touchdown passes?
Come on on Apr 10, 2008 at 04:56 PM:
I surpised that you guys are being so mean and talking about Scott like this. What if they figure out that SUFC (you) are typing all these mean comments. Go talk to students instead of commenting about Scott. The students are who you are trying to win over right? Oh and what did Scott ever do to you?
NOTHING.
PO'd Student on Apr 10, 2008 at 05:57 PM:
It would be great if SUFC did talk to the students! You can start by talking to us about why you are cutting programs that benefit students and using OUR money to take trips to NY!! What else don't we know? Has it been one big party at the expense of students? Sounds like we need a examination of all SUFC expenses. Subpoena sounds like the way to go to me!
Movie on Apr 10, 2008 at 06:36 PM:
This reminds me of the movie Mean Girls hahahaha
Re::PO'd Student on Apr 11, 2008 at 12:49 AM:
go ahead and subpoena SUFC and SA you dumbass, they haven't done anything wrong, and they certainly didn't transfer funds from the resource centers to their budget to go to a student government conference.
I like how ASAP just continues this belligerent trend of trying to twist what the SA has actually done this year. Sure, go all out with the sedition act. Everything else? good luck.
Students will only believe your lies for so long.
Chris Walker on Apr 11, 2008 at 07:00 AM:
"I like how ASAP just continues this belligerent trend of trying to twist what the SA has actually done this year. Sure, go all out with the sedition act. Everything else? good luck."
You make a strong argument here; we are not acknowledging the GOOD things that the SA has done. However, think about it: a government is only as good as its worst piece of legislation. SUFC, as the leading party in SA, may have passed some wonderful legislation, but they DID pass that Sedition Act. To a lot of people, THAT'S A HUGE DEAL! Any government that stifle's people's rights is going to be remembered for that, and anything positive they've done is going to be tainted because of it.
I don't think any reasonable person in this debate is trying to say that the SA, as led by SUFC, is worse than the Galactic Empire, that Dan Bahr is Darth Vader, and that ASAP is the rebel alliance (ok, worst analogy ever). But people are going to remember the bad things that have been done under SUFC's "reign." For me, the Sedition Act was a huge issue, as it is for many others; that has to be respected.
Additionally, I'm surprised that no one has even mentioned SUFC's slogan: "Mainstream, not extreme." If you look around, a good majority of student's (or at least those who follow student politics) find the SA Sedition Act as deplorable; and the fact that SUFC is trying to push away "non-traditional" student thinkers shows in my mind that they reject the marketplace of ideas, not embrace it.
I bring this up because I want an honest debate about that slogan (and I also want to shift the debate from angry rhetoric to a new topic): what does everyone else think about it? SUFC members (we know you're here :-p), would you please explain that motto? It has always sounded wrong to me.
Re::PO'd student on Apr 11, 2008 at 12:18 PM:
as a student observer, looking at the touted $53000 executive budget cut that Scott has yapping about, he will make extreme cuts to funding that directly benefits students there. I am not talking about executive salaries, I am talking about his machete whacking to office manager positions. It's extreme what he wants to get rid of, and those are STUDENT JOBS.
What if someone wanted to hack jobs from other services on campus? Perhaps we should cut the number of BOSS drivers in half, and then dock their pay CONSIDERABLY, and then make them drive twice as much.
That is extreme.
That's how SUFC can run on a slogan like mainstream not extreme; they're not for the extermination of student jobs, starting within the SA!! of all places! Why would anyone want to get involved with SA now? They already get horrendous representation in the post, they are now threatened with DRASTIC job cuts if ASAP takes office, and the student body is apathetic as it is.
Three reasons why I would never want to get involved with student government! I don't need to be hated, I wouldn't want to lose my job when a new party takes office, and I have better things to do.
Common Sense on Apr 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM:
Government, first and foremost, is about serving the public. The idea that people should want to engage over public service over a paycheck is absurd and juvenile.
Scott Walker campaigned on a promise to cut his own salary to help reduce the burden on his constituents.
Mr. Dettman is doing the same. He wants to tighten his belt before he asks the students to tighten their own.
Mr. Dettman = Fiscal Conservative
SUFC = Radical Facists
Re::Common Sense on Apr 11, 2008 at 02:14 PM:
Well then Scott Dettman should eliminate the executive line item and do the work of the president as free and allow the office managers to maintain their positions as paid staff. They are not politically active. They are secretaries and do basic tasks for the SA office that must be performed.
There's a difference between Scott Walker and Scott Dettman. They shouldn't even be in the same sentence.
Scott Walker = Public servant who will take a pay cut
Scott Dettman = Cut everyone else's job and allow me to maintain mine.
He is no fiscal conservative.
The IEC is Biased???? on Apr 11, 2008 at 07:27 PM:
Chris,
It is interesting that you complain about bias from Dan Bahr. When you get done whoreing around for ASAP, you should file a complaint with the Senate against him. Oh that’s right, it’s ok for you to be biased and not print any counter points of view. You are an editorial writer. Talk about hypocrisy.
Daniel V. Bahr on Apr 11, 2008 at 07:39 PM:
"Has he done a fair job so far as IEC? Surprisingly, for the most part he has."
Well no one is perfect. Thanks for the vote of confidence Chris. I think this just about says it all. As for the rest of you: PLAY NICE.
Dan
Re: The IEC is Biased???? on Apr 11, 2008 at 07:41 PM:
"Oh that's right, it's ok for you to be biased and not print any counter points of view. You are an editorial writer. Talk about hypocrisy."
For the record, I would like to note that the definition of "editorial" is as follows: "an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors." Hence it is inherently biased, because its someone's opinion. If someone wants a counter point of view, published in the Post, someone with a differing opinion should write an editorial expressing his/her views.
Cut Executive Salaries on Apr 11, 2008 at 09:52 PM:
The Salaries of Executive members will be reduced also. The SA President makes 9,000 dollars a year. The salaries of President and VP will be reduced also.
Sure they Will on Apr 11, 2008 at 11:25 PM:
By SUFC!!!
Anonymous on Apr 11, 2008 at 11:42 PM:
Now I know why they chose that slogan, Chris.
It's because Scott Dettman, the wannabe President, says "fuck you, you suck at life" in his emails.
But ok...that's not news. ASAP is extreme, hence the slogan.
The funny part is his pleading with the IEC not to release this information. Give me a break. If this were real politics, as he claims to represent, his campaign would be just as relevant as Ron Pauls
Nice Endorsement on Apr 12, 2008 at 12:05 AM:
From Nic Kovac, Scott???
NOT!!!
Just another exsample of how ASAP makes things up as the go along.
Nic Kovac on Apr 12, 2008 at 08:18 PM:
I endorse ASAP. Oh wait, that was before SUFC sat me down and told me about how ASAP went about getting my support: through lies and fallacies.
Reality on Apr 12, 2008 at 08:28 PM:
That would not be the first fallacy that ASAP has spouted. How about Dettman claiming he is going to lower tuition. Please. WTF, do you think you are on the board of regents??? SA has NO control over this. SA controls SEG FEES. Fees would only go up under Dettman. He would pay the hippies back by throwing money at the centers who have already found grants for the money that was cut. You can't save money unless you hold people accountable. The entire ASAP platform is nothing but idealism and spin.
WISPERG on Apr 13, 2008 at 01:07 AM:
SFC Funding for WISPERG would be job one for Dettman and Co if they were to win. Just what we need, student $$$ going to a Political Action Committee. Thank goodness for SUFC!!!
Re WISPERG on Apr 13, 2008 at 04:29 PM:
last time I checked, SA was supposed to be removed and impartial to those kinds of things.
The last thing we need is ASAP getting into office and letting an outside organization hijack our SA!!