Friday, January 26, 2007
This is why student government needs to be abolished
I am so glad I got out of this racket a while ago. Turns out a member of the executive committee of the UW-Green Bay Student Government Association spends his days going through IRS documents to justify a rational discussion amongst the students about membership into the United Council of UW Students. First, off a disclaimer, I was heavily involved with United Council in the 2005-06 school year, so I may be biased.
With that, these are the e-mails that are circulating around the SGA listservs. This is the first e-mail from Erik Mims, the former student senate speaker. Nevermind the gramatical errors, the majority of it is a blantant lie and cannot be taken seriously.
An open letter to the Student Senate,
At ORGSMORG today our Student President expressed concern with United Council regarding their efforts to seek UW-Green Bay as a member campus through referendum in the spring elections. Last year, UWGB was a member campus; however when SGA asked for their assistance in the budget process, their self-proclaimed “student rallying voice” was silent. Upon expressing this concern our President was told she needed to “get over it”.
Is this the type of behavior appropriate for a professional organization that receives its operating income from students? (2005 reported $589,131).
Indeed, it is time to move on from United Council, what said business sense is it for us to pay $23,200/yearly (estimated 5,800 students @ $2 per student per semester) for an organization unaware and unwilling to support the very cause they claim they exist for? Furthermore, when making a decision to spend that kind of student money, it seems prudent to question their high turnover of executive directors’ and the number of other campuses that have dropped their membership.
Finally, what does it say of an organization that who’s operation depends on student money when two requests for copies of financial statements made in April 2006 by SGA, which they are compelled by law to provide, go ignored? (Complaint recently forwarded to the IRS). Should the student government not provide some oversight on behalf of UWGB students?
United Council has been unwilling to hold its programs or its employees accountable for achieving the very goals they have identified.
The Board of Regents currently does not evaluate the fiscal responsibility of United Council on a yearly basis; this increases the risk to the student, much more so in the case when student government does not provide adequate oversight.
This trend of United Council sustainability unchecked by the constantly changing of student government and our lack of a system that collects and shares institutional knowledge in regards to membership in United Council. This condition, which is further aggravated by their decision to ignore the request for financials, causes limited visibility which increases risks to students.
You might ask, but what would we do without United Council? A reasonable question. The answer is, look what we were able to accomplish without them. Last year, the Student President and I took on the budget fight, meeting with elected officials which include both state and federal representatives. Furthermore, we took a trip to Madison and made our case to the System President… and at that point we didn’t selfishly share the concern of just our campus, but of all the campuses who were suffering the same issue as confirmed by the AP news article.
This year we have one of the best Legislative Affairs Secretaries than I have seen yet, she has accomplished much more than what United Council has in the last few years while we were a member campus. It is true that it is demanding of the position, however, wouldn’t an elevation of compensation similar to perhaps the same as the SUFAC Secretary be more prudent than paying $23,200 a year to an
organization that has failed us, and by their own admission & actions are unwilling to engage in discussion or provide transparency of their organization?
Almost surely the Student Senate will address this matter at the next session; I encourage senators to come prepared to discuss this matter seriously as it is a big decision that will impact the student body. Already we have received ambiguous data when asked by Secretary Roder, how much goes towards pay and how much goes towards lobbying?
I do not have to give a ballpark figure; the documents speak for themselves,
2005 tax documents - salary compensation - $242,114 + additional employee benefits $26,370, totaling = $268,484.
Lobbying - $4,250, representing 1.5% of the employee compensation, and .007 % of the revenue.
Senators, please do not treat this matter casually, ask questions such as I suggest below, consult with Secretary Winden when in doubt about the numbers – he is there to answer your questions.
Ask –
Why, despite UWGB students paying thousands of dollars in membership fees to United Council has the Board of Regents and Student Senate not compiled data or developed performance measures to evaluate the job they are doing?
Is the decision by the Board of Regents and Student Senate supporting UC referenda engaging in a practice that fails to hold United Council accountable for achieving its organizational purpose undermining the rationale to support them in the first place?
Are we making a sound business arrangement decision? Has the Student Senate inquired with the Legislative Affairs Secretary to other possible state, national organizations, both profit and non-profit alternatives?
Are we ready to become members of United Council again? Do we have evaluation procedures in places? Have we verified that they do? Have they shown improvement in their organization including a desirable program result that would benefit UW-Green Bay?
Is it professional of an organization that proclaims their staff is professional to wear a Bluetooth Headset while presenting to a potential member campus?
Finally, why have we gone this long, this year without a Faculty Representative?
Thanks for your time,
Erik Mims
Former Speaker of the Student Senate
(2005-2006)
Then, Michael Heller, the SGA Student Senate Speaker responded with this e-mail, which actually makes sense--without the hours spent on the IRS Web site.
Senators,
I would like to take a moment to respond to the negative e-mails that were sent to the Senate in regards to United Council. My personal opinion aside, I'm writing this e-mail so that each Senator can make their own informed opinion knowing the full circle of facts. It is also important to note that if legislation comes before the Student Senate it would be to add UC to the ballot for our spring elections. We wouldn't be deciding on whether or not to join the organization but would instead be allowing the student body to make that choice. We do, in fact, work in a democratic fashion and it would be selfish and irresponsible on our part to deny students the ability to make this choice. Now I'll talk about the valid concerns mentioned in other e-mails to the Senate.
Oversight was brought up as one of the major concerns. The oversight of United Council is, in fact, quite extensive. The students of each member campus must approve the United Council budget before it is enacted each year and if any changes need to be made such as entering into a new contract or hiring a new staff member, those changes must be first be approved by the UC board. This process is similar to the way additional budget requests at UWGB go before the SUFAC committee of Senate. Furthermore, if UWGB becomes a member campus, our students are welcome to run for office within UC, providing even more extensive oversight for our campus.
Another concern with United Council was the organizations spending habits when it comes to lobbying. UC performs its lobbying by meeting with legislators to talk about student issues and encourage them to prioritize those issues. I'd like to remind everyone (especially those writing uninformed e-mails) that because United Council is a nonprofit 501 (c) (3) classified organization, it is legally required to remain nonpartisan. It is important to note that lobbying has to be done in a different manner when an organization has this special tax status. Groups such as the Sierra club lost this status decades ago because they funnel money, time, and resources into specific partisan campaigns so that these candidates will support their agenda. It would be illegal for UC to use these tactics. UC lobbying is done not through endorsing candidates and campaign donations, but rather through the lobbying staff members of UC who are paid compensation. This compensation is included in the salary section (as opposed to the lobbying section) of the UC budget. Finally, numerous elections were swayed with the student vote during the past election with the help of UC student voting campaigns. If this trend continues, legislators will begin to take students much more seriously. This student voice is needed to curtail rising tuition; UC can't accomplish it on its own.
One last concern was the poor representation afforded to UWGB by UC. I'll ask you now, how can an organization represent a school that does not participate in that organization? This is similar to how legislators historically haven't listened to students because they don't vote. UWGB lacked a voting voice on the UC board of directors for half of the 2005-2006 academic year because our student body president fired and failed to replace this representation. In addition, UWGB either lacked full representation or had no representation at every UC General Assembly, a time when the direction of UC campaigns is formulated and voted upon by member
delegations. As I stated at our last Senate meeting, we make up United Council. If we fail to participate and vote in the organization it seems obvious that the organization will not address our specific needs and will instead concentrate on the needs of the voting members. The same goes for any organization that takes its direction from its voting members.
Maybe we can fight tuition increases and financial aid decreases on our own instead of joining the super-majority of UW institutions. It is possible that we could be successful but usually strength comes in numbers, as the saying goes. I challenge you all to form your own opinion on this issue now that you see both sides of the story. Don't take my word for it, and don't take the word of anyone else. Review the facts and decide for yourselves how you feel about United Council but please remember that your opinion may not be the opinion of the students you represent.
And then, shortly thereafter, Mims responded with this:
If to ask questions, openly correspond with those that represent me, and ask that before a $23,200 decision is set forth and certified by the Student Senate to be worthy of the student body’s determination that alternatives be identified (whether any exist or do not exist), evaluation standards be considered to include a data exchange between new student administrations, constitutes as a negative email,
Then so be it, I sent a “negative” email, or is it perhaps a different view than what the Speaker suggests followed?
I simply am asking Student Senators to apply critical thinking skills to this question, and not make a decision to put the senate’s certification upon a potentially costly venture.
Are there alternatives (has anyone asked the Legislative Affairs Secretary to research alternatives to include national, regional, both profit and non-profit)? How are the alternative records compared to United Council? Does United Council indeed have the monopoly on this type of representation?
Are the financial oversights sufficient? Have you looked at their fiscal policy?
I can assure you there is no mention of an independent auditor who reports to the UC Board, this document you can find on their website.
What is their track record and performance? How many advertisements have they put in newspapers to share student issues with the community? Were they the only ones that effected student election swings?
What explains their high turnover of Executive Directors?
I believe the efforts of our Legislative Affairs Secretary and her committee, along with the will of the student “voting voice” had one of the highest off-presidential election turnouts seen for UWGB yet.
The Speaker mentions their special tax exemption of 501 (c) (3) status; it is true they have to abide by certain laws, including sending financials requested by any public entity. SGA sent two separate requests in April of 2006; neither was responded to, compelling a complaint to be filed with the IRS.
United States T.D. 8818 makes it clear that –Responsible persons of a tax-exempt organization who fail to provide the documents as required may be subject to a penalty of $20 per day for as long as the failure continues. There is a maximum penalty of $10,000 for each failure to provide a copy of an annual information return. There is no maximum penalty for the failure to provide a copy of an exemption application.
I again ask, what does it say of a “professional” organization that they proclaim to be who responds to our Student President who tries to discuss a significant concern she has, that she needs to “get over it”? Regardless if you support the Student President or not, she received more votes than any other candidate did for anything… she was elected by the students, thus, should any external influence be telling our President this? What if a State Representative or Senator attempts to discuss a concern they have, will United Council professional staff tell the lawmaker that they need to “get over it”?
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what I find unacceptable and unprofessional of an organization whose professional staff has quarter of a million dollars tied up in wages and fringe benefits.
Finally, I ask you not to confuse my request to critically evaluate legislative action
regarding United Council as an opinion that the organization’s purpose is not a good idea, quite the contrary. I just believe that there are alternatives available. Last year when we lobbied to save the budget cut of yet another police officer, an important issue given that 150 beds had been added on campus along with significant physical assets such as MAC Hall and the Kress Center, the representatives we met with, which included U.S. Rep. Mark Green, stated that they prefer to hear from the UWGB student body rather than United Council.
Four elected representatives shared this with us. Given that, what is their effectiveness?
I only ask that a critical evaluation be afforded this decision, as should be applied to every voting decision asked of senate. Ask questions, talk to senior Senators such as Senator Czypinski, Navin, or Seleskie, ask them what they think, what kind of questions they would ask. Talk to Secretary Winden, ask him to go over what the numbers in the documents previously forwarded indicate.
Thanks for your time,
Erik Mims
So what does it all mean? It means that most people in student government are worthless. The executive branch of student government is worthless. And that all they care about is their own vested self-interests.
While no action is completely selfless, I do believe that Mr. Heller has a point--that working together, instead of seperately, works better in the halls of the Capitol and in Van Hise Hall.
There are universal issues that students are extremely concerned about. I consider it a three-ring circus. Tution is one of them. Financial aid is another. State funding is a third. The rest, for the lack of a better term, are on the fringes and are side shows. We can pick and choose what side shows we want to view and be a part of, but you can't dismiss the main event in the center of the big top.
I have had my difference with many of the issues and campaigns of United Council. I have a major problem with the UW System admissions policy and their push for more affirmative action. However, I can choose not to participate in that push. When it comes time for tuition hikes, financial aid or other system-wide impacts, we join together for the fight.
One of the most amazing experiences was to see that more than 50 students from a majority of the UW campuses attend the July 2005 UW Regents meeting where they voiced their opposition to the tuition hikes. It worked. For the first time ever, a Regent other than the student Regent, voted against the tuition hikes. Five regular regents, along with the student regent, voted agaist the 7 percent tuition hike. Interesting, eh?
This internal discussion amongst the student government in my eyes is a joke. While I admit there are accountability issues with United Council, especially with the funding of it, the isolationism that UWGB students are getting is not going to work for them in the long run.
Just a thought or two.
EDIT: At the request of my insider from within student governance statewide (who lurks in the shadows and is long since retired like myself ), I have removed some of my more poignant comments about a certain specific person. I have received some calls and some e-mails as to wondering who I received this from. As someone trained in journalism, I respect the fact of anonymity at the request of the source. I can assure you that it is not someone at UW-Green Bay or has ever been associated with UWGB.
