Final Draft of Appeal to UW-System President Reilly

7/27/2019 Final Draft of Appeal to UW-System President Reilly

1/14

From: Student Association of UW-Milwaukee

To: President Kevin Reilly

Date:

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

Michael Lovell

Page 1 of14

Contention of Facts related to UW-Whitewater Investigation

The Investigative Team discovered this to be a fact:

1.0 Independent Election Commission (IEC) Bylaws are not clear and do not provideadequate instruction on how individual students can run for office.

The Student Association refutes this to be fact. The Investigative Team does not specify what

adequate instruction has not been provided. The IEC Bylaws outline how individual students may

run for office as a party, as an independent or as a write-in. The Bylaws also make clear election

procedures, timelines and candidate regulations for office. The IEC Bylaws1 state the following:

ARTICLE IV Student Association Elections Procedure

Section 2 - Timeline

A. Student Association Elections will be held the second consecutive Tuesday, Wednesday, and

Thursday of April. Online polling will open at 12:01am on Tuesday, and will conclude at

11:59pm on Thursday. The Commission shall announce elections results within 24 hours of

polls closing.

B. Signature sheets will be made available by Noon the second Monday in February and due by

5:00pm the first Monday in March.

C. All senatorial candidate signature sheets that are turned in with a party association musthave the signature of the person who filled out and turned in the party registration form, in

order to be listed as a candidate on the ballot as a member of that party.

D. Individuals whose signatures are verified will appear on the ballot. Individuals who indicate

a party affiliation will appear on that ballot only with that party affiliation. To be eligible to be

placed on the ballot, candidates seeking the office of President of the Student Association must

have served in an elected or appointed position within the Student Association or at least six

months prior to the Student Association elections.

E. From the date in which nomination papers are due, there shall be a one week period for

validation of signatures.

F. After this one week period, the Commission shall post a list of all candidates that obtained

the requisite number of valid signatures online and via all student electronic mail. The

Commission shall then contact each candidate to verify their campaign statement.

Section 3 - Parties

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


2/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 2 of14

A. Party Registration forms shall be due by Noon on the second Monday of February. Party

registration forms must be filled out and turned into the Commission by the individual seeking

the office of President within that party.

B. No party shall be eligible for election without a President and Vice Presidential Ticket

submitting all required paperwork.

C. Parties shall be listed on the ballot alphabetically.

D. Parties shall not run more candidates than there are available seats in each school.

E. Every candidate in a party is responsible for their own signature sheets.

F. Parties must be Registered Student Organizations.

G. No student may run under more than one party

ARTICLE V - Candidate Regulations

Section 1 - Membership

A. Candidates seeking office must be members of the Student Association.

B. No member of the Student Association Judicial Branch or Independent Election Commissioncan, while in office, run for election.

Section 2 - Signatures

A. 450 validated signatures shall be required to be on the ballot for the President/Vice

Presidential ticket.

B. 50 validated signatures shall be required to be on the ballot for an At Large Senate or

Letters and Science seat.

C. 25 validated signatures shall be required to be on the ballot for any other school or college

Senate seat.

D. 10 validated signatures shall be required to be on the ballot for the School of Information

Sciences.

Section 3 - Write-In Candidates


3/14


4/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 4 of14

Constitution. This adjusted timeline attempted to provide a remedy for the identified issue, whilestill meeting the Constitutional requirement of holding the election in April.

c. People of Change party made several requests for the nomination papersfrom [redacted] but never received the papers nor a response from

[redacted]

Article II Composition, Duties, and Powers of the Commission, Section 2 Duties, B. state: The

Commission shall be responsible for making available all necessary forms. The Commission never

received a request, and the Investigative Team provided no such record of any request in the

report. Additionally, any and all nomination papers were provided to the student body online at:

(http://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Elections).

d. Because the papers came out more than six weeks late, one could assume thatthe entire process should have been backed up for a comparable amount of

time in order for individuals to register their party and to participate in the

elections. If that had occurred, the People of Change Party (which the senate

approved on March, 3 2013) would have been eligible to appear on the ballot.

[emphasis added]

The Investigative Team makes a counterfactual argument. The basis of this concern is an

assumption, by the investigators own admission, and demonstrates a general lack of knowledge

about the process by which a party would register. Party Registration is multifaceted which

requires both approval as an RSO by the University and SA Senate4 and subsequent registration as aparty with the IEC. The registration with the IEC, which was completed by two presumptive parties,

is merely paperwork which could be filed up until the very last second before the due date. The

papers for both presumptive parties were turned in on time. The investigation, by assuming, fails

to take into account that groups of students could have gained RSO status far in advance of any

given deadline for the election, regardless of the delay in IEC Party Registration Forms. It is

interesting, to say the least, that this investigation delves into assumptions of fact but neglects to

incorporate more than one logical assumption or a clear understanding of the issue under

investigation.

Moreover, the assertion that the process should have been backed up for a comparable amount of

time in order for individuals to register their party and to participate in the elections, fails toaddress a main point of the investigation which is that the process was off timeline. This seems to

suggest that while it isnt acceptable to deviate from the timeline, it would have been acceptable if itwould have allowed People of Change to participate as a party. Furthermore, the suggestion that

the entire process should have been backed up for a comparable amount of time would ultimately

violate the Constitution by not holding the election in April and place the election in July.

4 Refer to Appendix 3: UWM Center for Student Involvement Student Organization Manual
http://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Electionshttp://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Electionshttp://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Electionshttp://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Elections


5/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 5 of14

However as stated by [redacted] SA would have to had to amend their ownconstitution to move back the election date as it was a constitutional harddeadline within which they had to work.

This is substantially true. Article VII Elections, Section 4 Date of Elections state: Student

Association Elections shall be held in April as outlined by the IEC By-Laws.5

Moreover, according to [redacted] the reason the nomination papers were

not available as stipulated by the Bylaws was because the court was not on

their game. Furthermore, when asked why [redacted] didnt hold them

responsible, [redacted] stated that with the separation of powers within SA,

we stay out of the courts business.

An opposingperspective regarding the accountability for oversight within SA

was mentioned by [redacted] when asked why nomination papers werent out

in the timeframe stipulated by the Bylaws: Oversight should be the

senatethey should have asked why werent these papers done. It didnthappen. [Emphasis added]

These are not facts, rather perception of the events. It is important to note, the Investigative Team

did not provide the perspective ofall those interviewed in the report for consideration. Once the

Executive branch learned the papers were not released by the IEC, the Chief of Staff met with the

then acting Chief Justice to ensure immediate action was being pursued to make available all forms.

The IEC adjusted the timeline to remedy the situation and ensure the elections took place in

accordance with the Constitution. The IEC remedied the situation before the ensuing Senatesession on January 27th.

Lastly, through the interview of [redacted], the question was posed to

[redacted] as to whether or not [redacted]feltthe election was a fair process

given the infraction of not following stipulated Bylaws. [redacted] response

was no. More specifically, [redacted]stated that inclusivity is somethingthat is preached, but not practiced. [redacted] further stated that I believe it

does not lend itself to the democratic process to have one party on the ballot

at the arbitrary exclusion of one or more other parties. [Emphasis added]

These statements are subjective. At no point in the process was any party arbitrarily excluded, nor

has the Investigative Team provided evidence as such in the report.

e. [redacted] told the Investigating Team that this did not occur because[redacted] did not have the time to do it this year.

This is too heavily redacted to determine what exactly is of concern.

5 Appendix 1


6/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 6 of14

f. Article 2, Section D. iii [of the IEC Bylaws] states The commission shall, aftersuccessfully receiving the required validated signatures, place all qualified

candidate names in full, according to the office sought, on the online ballotThis clause is thus in conflict with the interpretation of any other section

which would remove a candidate who had the required signatures. [Emphasis

added]

The Investigative Team does not take into accountwhat it means to be a qualified candidate. The

Investigative Team interprets that having the required validated signatures is the only criteria for

being a qualified candidate. Becoming a qualified candidate is a process that includes being in

compliance with all requirements set forth in the IEC Bylaws. Additionally, a candidate may be

removed after being placed on the ballot. This process is outlined in Article VI Election Violationsof the IEC Bylaws6.

g. Article IV, Section 1. C. [of the IEC Bylaws] states that The IEC shall facilitate atleast one public and open debate consisting of every presidential nominee

whose signatures have been confirmed. As [redacted] signatures were

confirmed, per the Bylaws, [redacted] should have been included in the

debate. The section goes on to state that In the case that there is only one

presidential nominee a public forum will be facilitated with the date agreed by

the IEC and the nominee. No such public forum wassponsoredby SA or the

IEC. A forum was sponsored by another entity and that event was disrupted by

[redacted] and [redacted]. [Emphasis added]

This explanation is inaccurate. An initial forum scheduled for March 27th was cancelled due to

insufficient notice to candidates and poor attendance. The IEC had no involvement in or knowledge

of this forum. Another forum was scheduled for and held on April 4th. The IEC was in

communication with the aforementioned entity, the University Activities Board, regarding the

public forum on April 4th. The IEC was in attendance to oversee the debate. Nowhere in the Bylaws

does it state the debate must be sponsored by SA or the IEC. Sponsored is fundamentally different

than facilitated. Furthermore, the Student Association does not have any knowledge of a

disruption nor has the Investigative Team provided any evidence that a disruption took place in

their report.

h. Article IV, Section 3.F. [of the IEC Bylaws] states that Parties must beRegistered Student Organizations. Without further clarification, it is

reasonable to believethis means registered solely through the [Center for

Student Involvement]. [Emphasis added]

This explanation is inaccurate. University registration performed through the Center for Student

Involvement (CSI) is multifaceted. The student organization must fulfill the ten criteria for

6 Appendix 1


7/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 7 of14

University registration underREGISTRATION PROCEDURES (RECOGNITION PROCEDURES) asoutlined in the Center for Student Involvement Student Organization Manual7. Registered Student

Organizations (RSO) are to have read and understood these processes and go through

comprehensive training via CSI, in becoming a RSO. One criterion is as follows,The organizations

documents are then forwarded to the Student Association (SA) Senate for review and approval of

eligibility to received [sic] SA services.

(http://www4.uwm.edu/sao/publications/manuals/2012_Stu_Org_Manual_May.pdf) page 14-15 of

the Student Organization Manual states:

STUDENT ASSOCIATION ELIGIBILITY

The Student Association (SA) is the official campus-wide governing body for UWM students. Student

organizations shall not violate the Student Association Constitution or legislation enacted by theStudent Association within the scope of its authority. The Student Association must approve a

student organizations eligibility before the organization will be qualified to receive

segregated university fees, apply for Union office space, or participate in Student Association

Elections. Student Organizations applying for eligibility must agree to abide by the Student

Association governing documents. Student Organizations must register with the University prior to

applying for eligibility with the Student Association. Groups must apply for Student Association

eligibility each year. [Emphasis added]

Both parties (ASV and POC) submitted their RSO charters to be placed on the SA Senate agenda for

approval.


3.0 The People of Change party was denied a spot on the ballot in part because

they had not been approved by the Student Association. This approval

process was on the Senate agenda for the February 17, 2013 meeting but the

meeting did not achieve quorum. Given that [redacted], the allegations that

this was done purposelyto deny the recognition of People of Changeseem

plausible. [Emphasis added]

This is an assumption not a fact. The meeting in question, February 17th, was not originally part of

the Senate Term Calendar, which was set in June of 2012. The meeting in question was added to the

term calendar at the February 10th Senate session to take up financial matters by happenstance.

This proposed special session ultimately did not make quorum. However, Student organization

registration can be started at any time through the Center for Student Involvement, completely

separate from the Student Association. The registration for People of Change (POC) was not done

until the last minute. By chance, a special meeting was added for February 17th but did not achieve

7 Appendix 3
http://www4.uwm.edu/sao/publications/manuals/2012_Stu_Org_Manual_May.pdfhttp://www4.uwm.edu/sao/publications/manuals/2012_Stu_Org_Manual_May.pdfhttp://www4.uwm.edu/sao/publications/manuals/2012_Stu_Org_Manual_May.pdfhttp://www4.uwm.edu/sao/publications/manuals/2012_Stu_Org_Manual_May.pdf


8/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 8 of14

quorum. If the Senate had adhered to the original term calendar, POC, regardless, would not havebeen recognized by the SA in time for IEC registration as a party, because ofPOCs own deferment.

The Student Association categorically denies purposely notachieving quorum. The Senate hasfailed to reach quorum on several occasions and this proposed special meeting (February 17th) was

scheduled with the least amount of notice respectively. Plausibility should not be listed under

facts; this appears to show a bias (suggesting nefarious intent) and the Investigative Team

provided no evidence to support this claim.


4.0(a) Article IV, Section 2.D. of the IEC Bylaws was enforced during the elections,

though the most current affirmed, signed and dated copy of the Bylaws doesnot contain this section. (To be eligible to be placed on the ballot, candidatesseeking the office of the President of the Student Association must have served

in an elected or appointed position within the Student Association for at least

six months prior to the Student Association elections.)

The Student Association disputes this. If you reference the Independent Election Bylaws attached to

the 7/17/11 Student Association Senate Agenda (Exhibit A)89 you will notice that the section in

question, the second part of Article IV, Section 2, (D.), is part of the bylaws prior to the start of the

meeting. The Independent Election (IEC) Bylaws were passed on a voice vote without amendment

including the section in question under Article IV, Section 2, (D.) as evidenced by the 7/17/11

Student Association Senate Meeting Minutes (Exhibit B)10. These minutes were approved at the

8/18/11 Senate meeting as evidenced by the 8/18/11 Student Association Senate MeetingMinutes (Exhibit C)11. As evidenced in the Independent Election Bylaws signed 7/20/11 (Exhibit

D)12, the second part of Article IV, Section 2, (D.): To be eligible to be placed on the ballot, candidates

seeking the office of President of the Student Association must have served in an elected or appointed

position within the Student Association for at least six months prior to the Student Association

elections. inexplicably does not exist within the second part of Article IV, Section 2, (D.), but now is

placed under Article V, Section 1 (C.) , which was never passed by the Senate. It exists outside the

authority of the President to sign into law governing documents different than those passed by the

Senate, thus the version passed by the Senate (with the second part of Article IV, Section 2, [D.])

went into effect without Presidential signature 7 days after passage, per the Student Association

Constitution.

On December 14, 2011 the Student Association President signed SB1112-045, the SA

Accountability Act, into law (Exhibit I)13. We do not dispute that the act in question was signed into

8 Refer to Appendix 4: Dakota Hall v. Student Association Senate, et. al. 9 Refer to Exhibits within Appendix 5: Formal Response toDakota Hall v. Student Association Senate, et. al.10 Appendix 511 Ibid12 Ibid13 Ibid


9/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 9 of14

law, however it struck Article V Section 1, (C.), a section that did not exist in the true legal version ofthe IEC Bylaws, leaving intact Article IV, Section 2, (D.): To be eligible to be placed on the ballot,

candidates seeking the office of President of the Student Association must have served in an elected or

appointed position within the Student Association for at least six months prior to the Student

Association elections.. A signed copy of the amended bylaws does not exist or has yet to be found;

regardless, again, it exists outside the authority of the President to sign into law governing

documents different than those passed/amended by the Senate, thus the version passed by the

Senate (with the second part of Article IV, Section 2, [D.]) went into effect without Presidential

signature 7 days after passage.

Not only has the signed copy of the IEC Bylaws been proven to be an illegitimate copy, this issue

fails to address that the IEC Bylaws have been amended several times since and there are not

signed copies on record reflecting the changes.The signed version is illegitimate as evidenced.

4.0(b) [redacted] offered an explanation of this enforcement by claiming that the

referenced text had actually appeared in two different sections of the Bylaws

but had only been stricken in one. No copy of the Bylaws where this clause

appears in two different places has been located.

This explanation has no basis in fact. The Senate Oversight and Rules Committee (SORC) affirmed

that the current IEC Bylaws in effect (Exhibit H)14 includes the second part of Article IV, Section 2,

[D.]: To be eligible to be placed on the ballot, candidates seeking the office of President of the StudentAssociation must have served in an elected or appointed position within the Student Association for at

least six months prior to the Student Association elections.. SORC based its decision on the legislative

history evidenced in the aforementioned exhibits that reaffirmed that the second part of Article IV,

Section 2, [D.] was still intact. The most currentBylaws are linked on the University Student Courts

Election Headquarters page:http://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Elections

4.0(c) Additionally, even ifsuch a document exists, it seems clearthat the intentof

the Senate action was to remove both the clause and its effect. [Emphasis

added]

As aforementioned, no such document with said clause present in two different places exists;

again, the Bylaws in effect are available online.

You cannot assume that just because legislation is intending to strike something that isnt there thatit inherently strikes a completely different line. The scope of legislative intent cannot be creatively

construed to strike lines in governing documents that were not specified in the legislation in

14 Appendix 5
http://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Electionshttp://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Electionshttp://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Electionshttp://uwm.orgsync.com/org/sam/Elections


10/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 10 of14

question. It would be poor precedent if we are to consider lines stricken in a governing documentthat were not stated to be explicitly affected by legislation in question; it goes beyond the scope of

legislative intent. If we are to consider the legislative intent of the SA Accountability Act we must

look at the modern legislature and the diversity of intent. Does the 6 month rule in question have

anything to do with accountability in the Student Association in the context of the rest of the bill

(which is about recall reform)? Additionally, the bill itself was co-sponsored by nine (9) Senators

and passed by the Senate, each with the possibility of a different intention. The most important

reason to doubt that legislative intent settles interpretation is that the modern legislature is a group,

rather than an individual, and it seems unclear how a group, especially a group like a legislature, may

have intentions.15Scholars question quite how (and even why) legislative intent should be

considered.

So long as we think legislative intention is a matter of what someone has in mind and means

to communicate by a vote, we must take as primary the mental states of particular peoplebecause institutions do not have minds, and then we must worry about how to consolidate

individual intentions into a collective, fictitious group intention.16

This implies to construct a legislative intent an interpreter must fabricate an intention from a set of

disparate and incompatible individual intentions. The interpreter must choose whose intentions to

count towards the construct and which of their intentions to count.17These choices are arbitrary

and may not, of course, be constrained by reference to the legislatures true intent, for no such intent

exists. Thus, the sceptics[sic] conclude, legislative intent does not exist. 18The intent of the bills

author may itself be completely different than the intent of the cosponsors and the collective

intent of the Senate as a legislative body.

The intentions of the legislators plainly diverge in many ways. The legislators have their ownprivate plans, they may act for certain parts of a bill but not for others, and they may vote for a

bill not knowing its detail and in part to conform to party discipline or some such. Certainlegislators will be much better-informed than others about the detail of the bill and its likely

effect, while others may be ignorant or confused about its content. Thus, the intentions of

individual legislators are not identical, which is what one might hope for if aggregation was to

work. Further, a minority of legislators nearly always votes against a bill, and their intentions

are quite different from those of other legislators.19

Again, taking into consideration a legislative body like the Student Association Senate, it becomes

questionable to make an interpretation or judgment off of intent. The Investigative Team has not

interviewed the Senate body from 2011, in which the legislation originates and has somehow come

to this conclusion as fact.

The Investigative Team was provided with 94 pages of documents along with explanation (during

the interview of the Chief Justice) tracing the IEC Bylaws back to 2011 to prove the IEC Bylaws on

Sources:15Richard Ekins, What is legislative intent? (STATUTE LAW SOCIETY 2008)16R Dworkin, Laws Empire (Hart Publishing Oxford 1998)17Dworkin (n 5) 318-27, 329-3518Ekins 519Ibid, Ekins


11/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 11 of14

the USC website, and available to the student body, were indeed legitimate and thus in effect. Whatis troubling is there is no mention of this in the report released by the Investigative Team.


5.0 Minutes of SORC meetings (from [redacted]) were not made available on a

timely basis. When minutes were requested [redacted] and by the SA Advisor.

[redacted] failed to respond. In our individual interview with [redacted]

stated that, due to [redacted] was behind in SORC meeting minutes, and that

[redacted]. Additionally, aside from not responding to minutes requested

from the SA Advisor [redacted] stated that [redacted] requested meeting

minutes and that [redacted] did not respond to this request.

The Student Association agrees that the minutes in question were not made available at the time in

question and would like to explain the events surrounding this, as an explanation was not

encompassed in the report. The acting SORC Chair was injured which required extensive surgery

on his wrist and forearm. This injury, for the time in question, prevented the SORC Chair from

meeting SORC, and subsequently completing and approving the minutes in order to release them

upon request at this time. The SORC Chair informed POC of the situation.


6.0 Testimony was given that campaign flyers for the ASV party were printed on

the Student Association printer. [emphasis added]

The Student Association does not dispute that this testimony may have been given. However, this

testimony is completely false. The ASV party purchased all campaign flyers from UWM Union

Marketing and has provided an invoice for review.20 The Investigative Team did not investigate this

nor did they provide evidence that this took place.


7.0 [redacted] ran a campaign as a write-in candidate for a senate seat [redacted]

because [redacted] believedthere to be three open seats and only one

candidate on the preliminary online ballot. When [redacted] voted, there

were, indeed, three available votes. [redacted]states that [redacted]

confirmed [redacted] that there were three open seats. By the next day, voters

were offered only one choice. [Emphasis added]

The IEC did receive a complaint about this issue. The IEC ultimately re-issued the write-in

candidate a new ballot to address the complaint. However, it is inconclusive on what may have

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


12/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 12 of14

been the cause or if this was a technical issue. All balloting was done with the oversight of the Deanof Students office. There was only one open Senate seat for the School of Architecture and Urban

Planning (SARUP) and no student was able to vote for more than one Senator for the SARUP.21


8.0 University Court complaints that were filed appearto have been dismissed

without providing adequate review. Examples include the complaint that

(redacted) filed against the Student Association and the request for a

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and complaint that (redacted) filed

against the IEC. In the case of (redacted) complaint, the University Court

stated that one of the reasons it was dismissed was because the complaint

should have been filed against SORC, rather than the Student Association. Inreality, SORC is a component of the Student Association as a standing

committee designated in the Student Association Constitution. [Emphasis

added]

The Senate Oversight and Rules Committee (SORC) is a standing committee of the Senate. The

SORC should have been listed as the defendant due to where the alleged harm originated. The

Student Association is the collective body of student government. This was not the only factor in

why the case was dismissed. The USC found that the petitioner was also incorrect and thus not

harmed, in addition to not fully meeting the standard of collusiveness, due to the lack of real

adversity between the parties. It is important to mention that the case was re-filed correctly and

accepted because it met the University Student Court standards set forth for accepting a case.22


9.0 [COMPLETELY REDACTED]

Contrary to the public interest and the interests of the organization, this fact was completely

redacted. It is important to note that the report in question has any and all public officials redacted.


10.0 Additionally, in denying (redacted) request for a TRO23, the University Court

stated that one of the reasons was because the defendant did not provide an

answer or defense in the matter. Such logic is antithetical to a fair court

decision.

21 Refer to Appendix 7: Correspondence Between IEC Chair and Redacted Write-in Candidate22 Refer to Appendix 8: Disposition of University Student Court Case # 1213-00323 Refer to Appendix 9: TRO Request Dakota Hall, et al. v. IEC


13/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 13 of14

Section 9.2.3 of the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee (UWM) University Student Court (USC)Bylaws24 states:A TRO should be requested in complaint form. Section 9.2.2 of the USC Bylaws states:

A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is extraordinary in nature and not normally granted

unless it appears that a party is entitled to judgments and the commission or continuance of

the act during litigation would injure the petitioning party or it appears that during the

litigation a party is doing or about to do some act that would result in irreparable harm to the

petitioning party in violation of what is owed to the party or in harm that would tend to

render a later judgment ineffectual. Evidence must be provided for allegations of irreparable

harm.

The TRO request from a representative of People of Change against the Independent Election

Commission failed to meet any of the above criteria. The TRO was not requested in complaint form.

The petitioner fails to provide any evidence of injury or irreparable harm.


11.0 It appearsthat there was no systematic marketing of the call for

nominations process. Again, given that the prominent tenet of the Student

Association (as stated in the SA Constitution) is to ensure participation in

student governance. This lack of solicitation is disturbing. [Emphasis added]

There is currently no requirement within the governing documents of the Student Association to

engage in systematic marketing on behalf of the Student Association. In general this is notpracticed by governmental agencies and promotion is done by political parties, interest groups,

organizations, the media, social networking, individuals, candidates, events, etc. The Investigative

Team interjects charged judgment into what, by their admission, appears to be the case.

24 Refer to Appendix 9: University Student Court Bylaws


14/14



Date:


Michael Lovell

Page 14 of14

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Independent Election Commission (IEC) Bylaws

Appendix 2: Student Association Constitution

Appendix 3: UWM Center for Student Involvement Student Organization Manual

Appendix 4: Dakota Hall v. Student Association Senate, et. al.

Appendix 5: Formal Response toDakota Hall v. Student Association Senate, et. al.

a. Exhibit A: 7/17/11 Student Association Senate Agendab. Exhibit B: 7/17/11 Student Association Senate Meeting Minutesc. Exhibit C: 8/18/11 Student Association Senate Meeting Minutesd. Exhibit D: Independent Election Bylaws signed 7/20/11e. Exhibit I: SA Accountability Actf. Exhibit H: Current IEC Bylaws

Appendix 6: Invoice for ASV Fliers from UWM Marketing

Appendix 7: Correspondence Between IEC Chair and Redacted Write-in Candidate

Appendix 8: Disposition of University Student Court Case # 1213-003

Appendix 9: TRO Request Dakota Hall, et al. v. IEC

Appendix 10: University Student Court Bylaws

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

Documents

Final Draft of Appeal to UW-System President Reilly