President Reilly Appeal Cover Letter - Draft

7/27/2019 President Reilly Appeal Cover Letter - Draft

1/3

Dear President Reilly,

We write to you with a request to review an irreconcilable diference of opinion

between the Student Association of the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee and

University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Chancellor Michael R. Lovell.

As you may know, onMay 3, 2013, Chancellor Lovell contacted the Student Association

and communicated that the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee administration will

not recognize the current election results as valid. This decision was based on the

review of the UW-Whitewater findings from its investigation of the Student Association

election.

After careful review of the Investigation of UW-Milwaukee Student Association 2013

Election Process conducted by UW-Whitewater, we have determined this report to be

spurious and without merit. We state this unequivocally and without reservation.We0

would like to express great concern regarding the legitimacy of the findings discoveredand listed as fact in the report. Much of what is purported to be discovered as fact

by the Investigative Team is indeed not fact, which calls into question: the

investigation, the report, and the subsequent response.

The investigation failed to consider the totality of the circumstance. The Investigative0

Team failed to collect, consider and present all the relevant details and evidence. The

investigative report included selective testimony, explanation, and subsequent

accusations which were listed as fact. The vast majority of the report was based on

hearsay and void of corroborating evidence or an understanding of how the Student

Association works. The report was not thorough, objective, fair or accurate in its

findings.

When looking at the preponderance of the evidence and what was provided to the

Investigative Team, it is important to note that clear and convincing evidence was

omitted from the report. One example of this is 94 pages of electronic record,

correspondence, agendas and minutes that disprove the allegations surrounding the

IEC Bylaws and what the Investigative Team discovered to be fact. The report made

no mention of these documents and audio files,yet this issue was a main point of

contention and the reason for the request for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

of the elections and consequent University Student Court complaint brought by

the People of Change petitioner. (Not clear)

We have internal mechanisms to address and remedy complaints and unforeseen

circumstances. The University Student Court (USC) provides a forum to resolve

grievances brought by UWM students. The USC has given careful thought and0

deliberation to every election complaint brought before it. UWM Administration has0

sought to interfere, influence and circumvent these processes through investigation0


2/3

and subsequent unfounded and baseless action, disregarding our purpose to serve the

students and our statutory rights. It is important to mention that the USC complaint0

against the election was withdrawn by the petitioner and a relevant complaint0 0

regarding a Registered Student Organization (RSCO) is still in process and will be going0

to trial.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in Student Association of University of Wisconsin

Milwaukee, et al v Baum, et al (1976) 74 Wis. 2d 283 left no ambiguity in their decision

regarding sec 36.09(5) Stats stating, There is no question but that the students had

the right to organize themselves in a manner they determine. Additionally, the court

went on to conclude that the students have this right, without interference from the

administration. We are experiencing clear, overt, and heavy handed interference that

violates the statutory rights granted to the students.

In Justice Abrahamsons concurring opinion, it is reiterated that, the Chancellor

could not unilaterally determine the structure and mode of selection of studentrepresentation Further, Abrahamson wrote, There is no ambiguity here, and, The

rights of selection of representatives and of organization are no doubt interrelated.

However, two rights are created in the students, and both must be protected.

Abrahamson further wrote, The administrations view (with regard to student

representation) would make a mockery out of the students statutory rights of

organization and selection of representatives.

The Chancellor has decided to not recognize the current election results as valid due to

a report that is without questionmeritless and without regard for our internal0

processes. Moreover, this is in spite of the 3,300 students who voted in the election.

This is a continuation of a negative shared governance climate at UWM that has grave0

implications not only for shared governance at UWM,but for the unique and0 0

celebrated model of shared governance within the UW-System.UW-Whitewater0 0

Administration and others within the UW-System have shown they are complicit in this

continuing degradation of our once great concept of shared governance.

We do not claim to be perfect and this election was not free of tribulations and

complaints. We have made every efort to handle any and all issues transparently that

may have occurred in our elections; and it is important to note that no election is free

of some contestation of its procedures and processes. Instead of letting our internal

mechanisms run their course, or even start, our Vice Chancellor for Student Afairs

immediately, baselessly, and prematurely attacked our democratic processes and

elections in a way that can only suggest an evident agenda. If these unsubstantiated

attacks are allowed to continue and to spread and if student shared governance bodies

are to be so easily trampled under complicit inaction by the UW-System, then not only

do the students need to fear for the continuation of some semblance of their statutory


3/3

rights under Chapter 36.09, but the faculty, the academic stafand all others granted0

their respective rights have reason to worry.

The legal question must also be begged of what would happen if University

Administration were to set and allocate segregated university fees (SUF) without a

legitimate democratically-elected student governance body organized in a manner inwhich the students determine? This is a question that may have precedent in practice

but has no specific precedent in court. We are more than confident that 36.09(5) and

subsequent case law are not ambiguous; students retain the rights under 36.09(5)

without interference from the administration and said administration do not have the

right to set and allocate SUF, nor do they have the authority to disacknowledge the

elections of the Student Association. President Reilly, the UW-System finds itself in

uncertain times. The outcome is far from certain, but you will preside over the greatest

failing or the greatest victory of a higher education system in the United States in the

coming years. We will either see the return (and perhaps eventual true fruition) of the

distinctive, distinguished, and collaborative shared governance system pioneered by

the once great and renowned University of Wisconsin System, or we will see the

imminent demise of a unique shared governance system with infinite potential yet

unseen. We aspire to move forward together with the other shared governance bodies

at UWM collaboratively in a model of true shared governance where all bodies need not

fear interference from administration. President Reilly, we ask that you join us in the

defense of true shared governance and overturn this reckless decision.

Documents

President Reilly Appeal Cover Letter - Draft