I will continue to post on issues of importance to me at a new location with fellow UW-Madison students and alumni Patrick McEwen and Sam Clegg.  Our new project at http://northparkstreet.com/ is to cover issues that we care about.  Thus, if you continue to follow my writings – as I hope many of you will – you will likely see many posts from me about Law, Education, and Politics as well as various other topics or issues that catch my interest.

I will continue to blog about the UW and ASM as well, as part of our heritage at North Park Street comes from our common roots grown and developed on the great UW-Madison campus.  However, this coverage will not be as frequent as you have read here.

Again, I want to thank you one final time for tuning in to my rantings and coverage of our student government.  I thoroughly enjoyed taking you all Beyond the Talking Points.

What about Cale Plamann?

Plamann, described as MPOWER’s Joe Lieberman for his more moderate and rational views, ran for SSFC Vice Chair and garnered absolutely no support from his fellow party members.  When the MPOWER politburo came and spoke, they either disgracefully attacked Matt Manes’ character or supported the under-qualified Jolie Lizotte.

Why was Cale left behind?

Is it because he broke from the party and voted against Tina Trevino-Murphy for Legislative Affairs?  If so, this would imply that deviating from the party results in backlash, and of course MPOWER’s interest in being inclusive and welcoming wouldn’t allow for this.

Is it because Plamann wasn’t a strong candidate?  I can’t accept this one, because I (former SSFC Chair) had the opportunity to speak with Plamann and believe that he would make a good Vice Chair (although, I supported Michael Romenesko, who’s experience made him the stronger option).

I can’t imagine Plamann feels very happy about this breach of loyalty and disregard.

At least this tells us one thing about MPOWER, they don’t support “No Cale Left Behind”

This also means it’s time for the time-honored UW tradition of commencement speaker criticism!

Yes, this tradition dates back quite far.

[Update - 4:48] Oh, almost forgot about my friends over at University and State, who penned a couple of these pieces

Tiny Knox College Destroys Wisconsin

One Thumb Up, One Thumb Down

However, this year we are fortunate enough to have President Obama’s Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.  Although we do not have the pleasure of hearing the President speak to us as Michigan did, Secretary Duncan is probably the most notable speaker the UW has had in the last decade.  (OK, yes West Wing fans out there, Josh Lyman spoke in 2004)

As one of the senior class officers, charged with selecting (or sort of selecting) the commencement speaker, I think it is awesome that we will be able to hear Secretary Duncan speak this year.  I believe that his presence is indicative  that we are on the map in terms of top educational institutions and we just need to push a little harder to make it there.

There are a number of approaches the UW could take to improving our ability to attract top talent for our commencement address, and I believe that it is in fact extremely important to show the country that we are a top public institution.  Hopefully, with Chancellor Martin’s innovative record and forward-looking perspective, we will be able to make concrete changes at the university to improve our public perception.

Biddy, let’s start by tweaking commencement!

1) UW should move back to 1 large ceremony at Camp Randall (instead of 5 different ceremonies at the Kohl Center) – it then becomes a public spectacle, more likely to attract better quality speakers (larger audience, only have to speak at a single ceremony, etc).

2) UW should focus on recruiting speakers without ties to UW – Musolf and the Faculty have previously been fans of UW-related speakers, but I think we should seek out bigger and better names outside the university as well (and rely on faculty connections to famous people!)

3) In tandem with the last point, UW should assess a $2 or $4 commencement speaker fee to raise between $50,000 and $150,000 to pay commencement honoraria.  This will allow us to attract top-quality, non-UW speakers more easily without “breaking the bank” in terms of education.  Suchita Shah touched on this issue in a 2008 op-ed in the Badger Herald.  Despite what some commenters may say on the message board below, I think most students would be willing to forgo 1 spotted cow a year to attract a top-tier speaker.

4) UW needs to invest more care and effort into maintaining overall elite status (particularly via rankings).  The rankings, although every admissions office and higher ed administrator will tell you that they are not an accurate reflection of the institution, are all about perception and perception is 90% of reality.  Thus, we should be aiming to increase our public perception to a UCLA, Michigan, UNC-Chapel Hill to both improve our net of top students as well as to attract top speakers.

5) We should focus on graduation being a public spectacle for showing off the university. What graduates truly will benefit from is the increased visibility, stature, and prestige of the institution not how much more family friendly the Kohl Center is compared to Camp Randall.

We’ll see.  Maybe I’ll change my mind after walking across the stage next Sunday, but let’s make these minor adjustments, and I think we will see the payoff in major results.

Check out the blog pictures too

Lizotte received endorsements from her organization (WISPIRG…excuse me, leadership of WISPIRG who went through careful pains to state the name WISPIRG at least 3 times but also said that WISPIRG does not do endorsements), former campus leftist radical icon Kyle Szarzynski of Student Tenant Union notoriety.

Also, “campus character” Tina Trevio-Murphy, of the year-long CWC fiasco came and spoke against Manes (likely in part because he voted against her org).

Matthew Manes received glowing endorsements from the 3 previous SSFC Chairs (including the recently-elected ASM Chair Brandon Williams, and GSSF group leader Patrick McEwen.

There have thus far been a number of good questions concerning the role of the SSFC Chair, and Manes has shined thus far.

I call Lizotte 4, Manes the 9…drumroll please!

Matt Manes elected SSFC Chair!  10-2-1!

—–

BATTLE ROYAL #2
ROMENESKO v. PLAMANN

Plamann – “we don’t have to operate as robots”  Love it!  Timing was perfect Cale!

Voting Time!  I call 10-2 romenesko

Michael Romenesko elected SSFC Vice Chair!  10-1-1!

—–

Smathers v. Alvarez for Secretary (interesting)

- As much as I like both candidates, it is tough to find anyone better than Smathers to record what goes on at meetings and provide the information to the public.  I have no idea how this will go.

Roll Call for Secretary.  Then I’m out for dinner.

6-4-2 victory for Smathers (following in the footsteps of some great SSFC Secretaries – Manes, Junger, Fergus, Gosselin)

—–

I think I can put this out there now:

PERFECT SWEEP (I feel like the ’72 Dolphins!)  ASM is gonna have a good year.

MPOWER member (Savoy) speaking against weekly meetings as too much, because people do other things?  Are we going to see a FACES 2.0?  Too much work, time to go. hmmmm.

Johnson and Madsen in favor.

Zinn tries to call early close to meeting (failed)

Love continues his Karl Rove-like obstructionism (objected to vote again).

Motion to hold weekly student council meetings passed overwhelmingly.

5:18 – Finance Committee Appointments

1) Beemsterboer nominated and approved. (3 empty seats remain)

5:23 – SSFC Appointments

1) Manes nominated and appointed (SSFC leadership experience) – 28
2) Plamann nominated and appointed (Law experience – work through SJ) – 17
3) Peters nominated (SSFC experience) – Peters rescinded his nomination
4) Lizotte nominated and appointed (WISPIRG – GSSF Group experience) – 20
5) Vollrath nominated and appointed (SACGB – VPN experience) – 11?
6) Childers nominated (No real experience)

5:44 – Nominations Board

1) Beemsterboer nominated (rescinded himself from consideration)
2) Hanley nominated & appointed
3) Nichols nominated & appointed
4) Diechl nominated not appointed
5) Fergus nominated & appointed
6) Love nominated & appointed
7) Savoy nominated & appointed
Woolwich nominated & appointed
9) Zinn nominated & appointed
10) Junger nominated & appointed

6:14 – Rules Committee Appointments (3 empty seats)

1) Junger nominated & appointed
2) Plamann nominated & appointed
3) Beemsterboer nominated & appointed
4) Ingram nominated & appointed
5) Johnson nominated & appointed
6) Ziebell nominated & appointed

6:17 – SACGB Appointment

1) Ziebell nominated & appointed

*** Brief Pause until Committee Chair Elections ***

- If interested, check out ASM Watch for the details of other committee appointments.

6:44 – Council postponed other committee appointments to get to Nominations Board Chair

Nichols v. Savoy (showdown commence)

Savoy – spoke about her non-ASM experience.  Her goal is to make sure that good ppl get appointed.
Nichols – spoke about her excitement for Chair of Noms.  She discussed her qualifications of having served on the committees to which she will be appointing people.  She also discussed her connections on campus and her ability to get along with a variety of people

Questions!!!!

Junger: What is the role of the Noms Board Chair?
Nichols: She wants to welcome people to the office, assist them with tools, etc., knowing what they can do, who to talk to and develop relationships.
Savoy: She spoke about needing to outreach to people and discussed about resources too.

Junger: What qualifications do you look for in a Chief Justice of the Student Judiciary?
Savoy: I don’t know
Nichols:  Expansive list of qualifications given.

Manes: What knowledge do you have concerning SSFC and Finance Committee?
Nichols: Having served on SSFC, I would find people who can make viewpoint neutral decisions and those who could manage their time well.
Savoy: I would look for competent people.  The people I appoint will be good.

Manes: What have you done schedule-wise to alleviate the Noms Board Chair time burden?
Savoy: I never leave my schedule heavy. I planned in advance.
Nichols: Having been in ASM on SSFC, SACGB and as an intern, I know what the time requirement is and have adapted my schedule to it.

Love: What specific qualifications do you possess to administer the Noms Board?
Nichols: ASM experience, job experience, time-management, personableness, etc.
Savoy: I have joined many different orgs and get to know student interests, even though I am a freshman.  Also, as a Posse Scholar, I have participated in leadership workshops.

Junger: Is the job description enough?
Savoy: The job description never has everything included in it
Nichols: There is much more than what is in the description.  It is my desire to take the position above and beyond the job description.

DEBATE

Karl Rove, err… Max Love supports Savoy (no surprise there)

Zinn is concerned about people on SSFC serving on Noms.

Vollrath spoke about Nichols’ initiative and drive as an intern.

Ziebell echoed Vollrath’s sentiments and discussed the great ideas that Nichols brings to the table and her welcoming and inviting approach to ASM.

Beemsterboer and Junger both spoke in favor of Nichols as well

Junger brings up Noms Board as an HR department and slaps down Zinn’s comments about Andrea.

Plamann spoke about wariness of chairing Nominations Board and sitting on SSFC.

Johnson spoke in favor of Nichols

SECRET BALLOT VOTE

Nichols defeats Savoy 15-11-1

7:17 – Motion to postpone everything except the scheduling of the next meeting

Some people want to push forward, others want to break for the day.  It has been 7 hours.

Motion failed.

Alright, I have to run off to another meeting tonight, but I will attempt a brief recap later tonight.  If you want to continue following live, ASM Watch and ASM Voice have you covered.

Congratulations to Brandon Williams, Adam Johnson, TJ Madsen and Andrea Nichols!

VOTE: 20-12-1

4:25 – ASM Vice Chair Debate!

Johnson v. Lizotte

Manes for Johnson
Love for Lizotte  (Love argued for Lizotte bringing forth new ideas)
Junger for Johnson (Junger addressed some of the duties of the position and the benefits of ASM experience)
Woolwich for Johnson (Johnson was very welcoming, inviting, worked well with everyone)
Zinn for Lizotte (Argued that VC doesn’t need ASM knowledge & experience)
Beemsterboer for Johnson (He did extremely well meeting with StuCo reps, state reps, and tackled many important issues as Leg Affairs Chair, etc.)
Hilliard for Lizotte (People are here to represent students)
Plamann for Lizotte (I really don’t understand why though.  Apparently Lizotte is some state lobbyist superstar and Johnson isn’t very good).
Love advocates for lack of experience in his VC vote?  I’m really confused about this guy.

Secret Ballot vote has been called for.  Majority vote passed the approval.

Yay!  Brandon just demonstrated adeptness at the nuances of Robert’s Rules with his Stand at Ease Order.

—–

3:30 – VICE CHAIR Q&A

Johnson and Lizotte were both nominated for the Vice Chair Position.  Opening statements:

Johnson – quintessential outreach position (On campus, in city & state, across the nation) – breadth of experience in ASM and with city/state officials

Lizotte – mostly focused on WIPSIRG experience (coalitions, moderator ability, kickoffs, voting drive)  - I wonder if her attack on Brandon will hurt her.

Q&A limited to 45 minutes.

LOVE: Questions from Love about outreach and getting people to voice their concerns.
Johnson: Mentioned work with Mayor Dave, close relationships with Alder Bryon Eagon, Bidget Maniaci and much of the work he has done this year (ALRC, Gubernatorial Debate, Lobbying, etc.)
Lizotte: Emphasized creating coalitions and working on getting people to vote.  More talk about WISPIRG.

Fergus: What qualities do you possess that will help you serve UW students?
Johnson: spoke about visiting other schools and being sure to work with them.  He also emphasized knowing all of the issues.
Lizotte: I got bored, rambled a lot

Fergus: What should Madison’s role be in larger lobby organizations?
Lizotte: We need to work for our students and we need to also work for the larger goals of all students.
Johnson: We have to work collectively with other campuses to effect change.

Zinn: What have you done to reach out to student orgs in your legislative work?
Johnson: We need to actively reach out to organizations who are politically active to connect these orgs to our efforts.
Lizotte: Coalitions, voting in 2008, worked with UC, College Dems and WISPIRG & ASM, etc.

This debate is starting to feel like the chorus in a Kesha Song…

Ziebell: What city/local issues have you worked on?
Lizotte: Transportation options issues because people don’t have cars, fair trade, etc.   Also another mention of voting.
Johnson: Most of my leg affairs work was local

Ziebell: How will you effectively work with Chair Williams to be a strong ASM leader?
Johnson: Previous work experience, complementary strengths, meeting and strong relationship with many
outside officials
Lizotte:  I would go through a very long process before opposing a decision.

—–

BRANDON WILLIAMS ELECTED ASM CHAIR

Trounced MPOWER candidate 20-12-1

NOW ON DEBATE!

Rep. Manes spoke about the wealth of endorsements for Williams and highlighted his outreach and experience.  Debate limited.  Max Love objected and lost.

Rep. Love (MPOWER)  spoke about wanting to know how many people were lobbied by constituents (this is probably because he tried to organize a mass emailing of council members)

Rep. Huang (MPOWER) spoke about working with Zinn on SLAC, and discussed how Zinn facilitates SLAC meetings well.

Rep. Fergus spoke about having worked with both candidates in the past and spoke about keeping his vote secret, and that all L&S reps received form emails composed by Rep. Love

Rep. Nichols spoke about meeting with Williams and was not reached out to by Zinn.  ”I was literally blown away by how good Brandon was… I cannot explain what an amazing experience it was working with Brandon”  He did not even attempt to influence my decision, and it was a great experience.  Lots of glowing praise.

Rep. Johnson spoke about really beginning to support Williams after the tenant services proposal in the ASM Budget.  He is hard-working and dedicated, and he is very likable. Also, apparently Williams plays guitar and bass.  He will “raise the bar” for ASM and make 17th session the real turning point for ASM.

Rep. Vollrath spoke in favor of Williams and discussed the respect that so many people have for him.

Rep. Stevensen (MPOWER) spoke about both guys being great for the position.  He is looking for a particular attitude about ASM – he wants more connection with students.  Blogs and office hours aren’t helpful at getting to know students, Zinn will outreach and talk to students.  This organization needs to organize.

Rep. Ziebell spoke about working with Williams on SSFC, SACGB and Student Council.  She spoke about Williams working well with her to fix the SACGB process and discussed her support.

Rep. Plamann (MPOWER) spoke about meeting with both candidates but wanting a different tone for this year.  Jonah’s history with SLAC is the deciding factor for him.

Rep. Beemsterboer spoke about the importance of working with administration and that this quality is critical.  Someone who previously worked anti-admin would have difficulty building the relationships.  Williams will affect positive change working with campus admin.

Rep. Lizzote (MPOWER) attacked Williams (without mentioning which GSSF groups “had issues” with him).

Rep. Junger spoke about how this is the first time he had ever heard any rumblings of negative interactions with Williams.

Rep. Manes spoke about how Williams was a very positive person on SSFC.

Debate time elapsed.  Time to vote:  Secret Ballot

—–

1:30 – A little agenda housekeeping & now time for fun! *** Chair Debate ***

Fergus & Love nominated Zinn
Johnson & Nichols nominated Williams

Opening remarks from both candidates, Chair Williams discussed meeting with nearly anyone and then addressed his background in ASM through SSFC as well as his vision for ASM.

QUESTIONS!

Manes: How will you outreach?
Williams: Blogging, Vlogs for greater accessibility, actively seek student input by talking with organizations
Zinn: Need to outreach to groups across campus, go to meetings, etc. (also emphasized anti-office hours)

Manes: Parli Pro Experience?
Zinn: Parli pro experience comes from being at Council meetings
Williams:  2 years of SSFC experience (much stronger and intense than Council meetings), also operating under Roberts Rules is much different than Managing meetings through Parli Pro

Fergus: Leadership Style?
Williams: Center of the spokes of a bicycle, listen to others, have conversations with everyone and drive forward
Zinn: Passionate about things he’s leading, likes working with other people

Vandenlangenberg: Tactics you would use when working with people with different ideologies?
Zinn: Meet with people who bot h agree and disagree with you and cross-committee collaboration
Williams: Chair’s job is to make sure people are working together, and it is important to develop a personal relationship in addition to a separate professional relationship.  To address this, people should be more engaged outside of meetings.  Friday basketball, drinks at the Terrace, etc.

Hanley: How would you determine the number of golf balls that would fit in a 747 jet?
Williams: Emphasized practicality.  Would first gather info on schematics on the 747 and measure golf balls & consult with a mathematician to determine the answer.
Zinn: I would want all the info I could find out and then talk to passionate people and talk to designers of the 747 and a mathematician

Vollrath: How will you balance ASM Chair time with Academics?
Zinn: This year I have worked hard to balance interests and next year I plan to focus on the chairship, school and girlfriend.  Other orgs will take a backseat.  I have scheduled easier classes last semester.
Williams: I plan to go to law school post-undergrad.  I will be taking the LSAT course this summer and the LSAT in the fall.  I also have room in my schedule to drop a class if necessary, and my past track record on SSFC has demonstrated that I can make the balance work.

Junger: When did you last speak in favor of a situation you did not agree with?
Williams: When presenting budgets to the Council and the Chancellor I had to represent the committee (SSFC), not my own views.
Zinn: I would have liked to be “more radical” on textbook costs, but I would not have an issue representing ideas different than mine.

Junger: When is it acceptable for the ASM Chair to influence the decision of the Student Council?
Zinn: After getting others’ perspectives
Williams: Center of the spokes of a bicycle.  There are times when the organization is in deadlock.  The Chair should be the central force to keep the student government wheels turning.

Plamann: Divestment from Israel Question
Williams: It is not ASM’s place to take on these types of controversial issues.  There are many universal student goals related to students that ASM should work on, and we should not pursue controversial interests.
Zinn: Starting out, we should focus on issues we all agree on, but controversial issues are often relevant and beneficial to students.  If this council decides it is important, I will do what I can to work on the issue.

Beemsterboer: Role of ASM?
Zinn: Represent students, funding, 36.09(5), influencing legislature, “representing students” – not sure about this answer
Williams: In my past two years of ASM, I have dealt with this question directly.  This is an organization of students for students.  Disposition of segregated fees, shared governance, lobbying at the capitol are all a part of serving students.

Beemsterboer: Role of Student Council?
Williams: StuCo is the center of ASM and the overall role is to keep the organization functioning and moving forward.
Zinn: Arena of debate on student issues.  Any issue that faces students should be brought up here.  (Editor’s question: does that mean divestment in Israel?  You did not state that you would be against it before.)  It is the place to balance out and decide on issues.

***Pause***  I’ll be back soon

Fergus: What have you done to build relationships with administrators?
Williams: Chancellor Martin, Vice Chancellor Darrell Bazzell, Assistant Vice-Chancellor Donna Halleran, Purchasing Services Director Carl Hubbard, Dean of Students Lorti Berquam, etc.  These contacts and relationships will come in handy
Zinn: Labor license and policy committee, and some people in administration.  He is difficult to hear though.  Some mention of academic staff organization.

Vandenlangenberg: Asked about team management when you know what’s right and you’re being pushed to follow a different approach?
Zinn: If the body is democratic, I have to follow it, but it would be good to inject some of you’re own influence.
Williams: I appreciate and respect the knowledge of others and would try to have an open discussion to understand the why, and this should help bring us to the right conclusion in the end.

Vandenlangenberg: Each member of the team knows their specific function of the team’s work.  Would you side with independent perspectives or put them all together?
Williams: Since I know the correct answer objectively, I would guide people to the right answer.
Zinn: It comes down to synthesizing all the info you are presented with.

Kuo: How would you respond to criticism?
Zinn: Being able to respond and be active in discussion is important.  By interacting with press and students, our work will speak for itself.  Response to criticisms would be evident in our actions.  Our press office needs to work well too.
Williams: I have substantial experience with criticism through SSFC.  Dealing with groups’ funding is always contentious.  If we operated without criticisms, we could not be held accountable to others.

Nichols: What’s a mistake that you have made and what did you do to fix it?
Williams: I didn’t make the SSFC process as clear as I should have and I will remedy this by assisting the next SSFC Chair in improving the process.
Zinn: I have trouble delegating.  I would hand out tasks more.  SPEAK LOUDER!

Love: How are you in touch with the General Student Interest?
Zinn: I am involved in a lot of student orgs on campus, I have a network of ppl I know in and out of student orgs.  It is important to synthesize info from others’ perspectives.
Williams: I do have conversations with people about ASM.  It is important to reach out beyond poli sci and econ majors by talking with grad students and others on council.

Ademaj: What are your weaknesses?
Williams: I struggle delegating tasks to others
Zinn: Delegating tasks also and becoming overly focused on certain things and neglecting others. BUT JONAH, THE CHAIR HAS TO BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON DOZENS OF TASKS AT ONCE!

Schmuhl: What are the two or three most important student issues to the average student?
Zinn: Those issues that affect the lives of most students like affordability of higher education and campus safety.  Also, campus unity and campus equality.  Perhaps grad student and undergrad issues aren’t different.
Williams: The pocketbook.  It is about affording education.

Lizotte: What’s the Chair’s role in leadership development?
Williams: The role is very diverse.  It is necessary to involve people to become good leaders.  The best way to start this process is to lead by example.  The best leaders inspire others.
Zinn: It is the role of the Chair to develop leadership for personal sanity to let people step up.  It is also a good idea to make volunteers express their opinions and views.

Junger: Do you feel that you have had an unmitigated success this year in ASM?
Zinn: Couldn’t hear.
Williams: SSFC making the right decisions

Junger: Address housing issues?
Williams: I have a three-page document on all the things we can do for housing in ASM.  He then described the Tenant Services contract he has been working on, the Madison Property Ratings Website, and the Maniaci ordinance.
Zinn: Mentioned something about student voice.

—–

1:05 – Open Forum Continues

- Matt Manes read a letter on behalf of former ASM Graduate Representative Erik Paulson who is presently in DC. Paulson endorsed Brandon Williams for Chair, Adam Johnson for Vice Chair and TJ Madsen for ASM Secretary.

- Jonah Zinn spoke about academic affairs and endorsed Carl Fergus to succeed him. Ironically, Zinn advocated for positive elections.

- Colin Ingram discussed wanting to schedule summer meetings on days other than Sunday.

- Dan Posca spoke favorably about Brandon Williams and Adam Johnson for Chair and Vice Chair. He stressed Williams’ impartiality and Johnson’s well-regard around the UW System.

- Martin Uraga came and spoke to Student Council about being interested in running for Diversity Committee Chair. He will discuss these plans during the Diversity Chair election.

- Steve Olikara, outgoing ASM Diversity Chair, spoke in favor of Martin Uraga for ASM Diversity Chair and discussed the disadvantage of slating in ASM. “Martin is one of the deepest thinkers I have ever met on diversity”

- Scott Thompson spoke about his experiences with Jolie Lizotte for ASM Vice Chair and discussed her outreach efforts in WISPIRG. (Important note: WISPIRG cannot endorse, this was Scott speaking as Scott)

- Rashi (WISPIRG Secretary) spoke in favor of Jolie Lizotte for ASM Vice Chair

—–

12:45 – Open forum speakers (SPILL for Matt Manes for SSFC and Brandon Williams for Chair), Sam Polstein discussed his goals for Legislative Affairs.

- Good point Polstein – ALDO (Alcohol Licensing Density Ordinance) will not be repealed and it would be foolish to push for repeal

Kayla Lubenow (former MPOWER candidate) just endorsed Adam Johnson for Vice Chair! Adam Johnson just received and MPOWER endorsement in addition to the Badger Herald and Daily Cardinal endorsements.

Theotis Sharpe (former ASM Noms Board Chair) advised Student Council on representing students and not becoming overly adversarial.

Chair Emeritus Junger spoke about not using too much open forum time for questions, etc.

—–

12:40 – Justices are present and it looks like we might get started now. (only 40 minutes late)

—–

12:30 – Still no Judiciary. The rapid execution of justice continues.

—–

12:10 – No SJ yet. I wonder when this meeting will get started.

—–

12:00 – Here we are, the first meeting of the 17th session of ASM. Most of council has arrived and we are currently waiting on the Chief Justice of the Student Judiciary to get this party started.

—–

ASM Chair Elections coming to you via Beyond the Talking Points today beginning at noon.

Stay tuned…this first meeting of ASM Student Council for the 17th session (and the first Student Council meeting for which I have not been an elected representative in 2 years) will be filled with wonderful debate and passionate arguments and will include decisions on who will lead the UW-Madison student government next year!

May 1 & 5, 2009
Zinn, a member of the overly divisive FACES Slate, votes in favor of 50-year old Brian Benford for ASM Chair to serve as the student body’s representative.  Benford lost the vote and resigned only a few meetings later after failing to show up to a handful of Student Council meetings.

September 16, 2009
Zinn spoke in favor of 16-0916-05, which included using student segregated fees to provide unlimited funds for buses to DC for the National Equity March so students would not have to pay to attend.

October 14, 2009
Zinn voted in favor of allowing SSFC members to threaten and coerce each other for votes on student groups. I’m glad he was on the losing side of this vote.

Zinn voted against SSFC Accountability Bylaws.

Zinn voted against student council office hours via the ACCESS ACT.  So much for transparency!

Zinn supported less accountability and control over how student fees are spent in the ASM internal budget.

October 28, 2009
Zinn spoke about having a $500 loss from the Fall Text Book Swap

Zinn was the only student council member present to not vote in favor of SSFC Accountability Bylaws.  18 other members were able to agree and Zinn was not?  This is telling.

Zinn spoke against stricter attendance policies for Student Council members.  ”Students have other things going on”  - Is this the attitude you want toward ASM from your chair?  I don’t

November 11, 2009
Zinn (and fellow SLAC buddy Eric Hoyt) attempted to rush through the $1.1 million ASM Internal Budget to push his personal legislation which called for 3rd shift custodial workers to be able to attend union meetings.  This is a valiant cause, but is this really what the student government should spend its time on?  Also, which one do students wish we spend more time on – $1.1 million of their dollars or a symbolic resolution?  Oh, and how about this for pushing his own thing over others’ legislation/ideas!

November 18, 2009
Zinn was one of two people to vote to add an agenda item illegally (because it was his legislation).  No notice, no legislation buddy – I think a potential Chair candidate should follow Open Meeting Law (especially one claiming transparency and openness).

Zinn opposed accountability of $1600 intern projects by arguing against Student Council approving them before resources are expended.  Zinn also probably opposed this because it took away the power he tried to consolidate for himself in the Academic Affairs Committee.

Zinn used a procedural delay tactic to put off a piece of legislation he opposed which would make ASM Council meetings more transparent to the public.

December 14, 2009
Zinn opposed increased accountability and requiring legislation to be submitted and read publicly prior to voting.

This is only the first half of Zinn’s voting record, and thus far, it has been quite lacking in terms of responsibility, transparency and is indicative of being out of touch.

First of all congratulations on your election to ASM and helping to make this a historic turnout, I really look forward to working with you next year.  I also wanted to tell you that I am planning on running for the chair position.

Jonah then lays out his SLAC work, though he omits dancing outside the chancellor’s office from this brief paragraph followed by his work on the ASM Textbook Committee, err…Academic Affairs.

But here is the part I have difficulty fathoming:

I would also like to work with every representative to incorporate our goals into the work of ASM.  I really believe that the issues of ASM should be the issues that ASM representatives are committed to.  As Chair I would work hard to make sure that you achieve your goals.

So, Jonah, you make the claim that you want to work on everyone’s goals but you run as a political for the election?  How does this make sense.  The very purpose of running as a slate beholds you to the interests of that slate and not the interests of everyone else.  Jamie Stark penned a great piece on the problems of slates in ASM.

Slate leaders can use the bloc as a recruiting tool to nab candidates for every open seat. But when it comes to decisions made post-election, the important work of ASM, slates are detrimental.

Well, with a vote for Jonah for Chair, a voting bloc is what the next session and this campus has to deal with.  Not so bad you say?  Well, if you want a your money funneled to pet student organizations, your money spent on $1600 intern projects that flop (FAFSA Week had what 20 people show up the whole week?) and a student government that works on divisive issues in Israel and Honduras instead of Madison, WI, then Jonah might just be your guy.

Perhaps this is a more accurate reflection of Jonah’s Chair Announcement Email:

I would also like to work with every MPOWER representative to incorporate MPOWER’s (and SLAC’s) goals into the work of ASM.  I really believe that the issues of ASM should be the issues that MPOWER representatives are committed to (such as divestment in Israel, funding our student organizations at really high levels and dancing outside the chancellor’s office).  As Chair I would work hard to make sure that you achieve MY goals.