Hi, all,

I thought that since our new MSA reps will be coming in to mark the first half of my term this Tuesday, I should provide a midterm review of myself. I will have something posted reviewing my campaign platform progress and changes. I've done a good job in some areas but not in others. Please submit something yourself by posting a comment or by emailing me: I'll post all of the emails (good and bad).

Yours,

Rese

Hi, all,

Here is a copy of Students for PIRGIM's Appeal for the Central Student Judiciary ruling. It deals with CSJ's mislabeling Student PIRGIM as an "action organization," violations of separation of powers, CSJ misinterpreting Southworth I and II, and procedural problems.

Yours,

Rese

---

Appeal of Case 05-002, Wells-Reid v. Michigan Student Assembly

Carolyn Hwang, Former "Intervener", Current "Petitioner"
 

Statement of Case

Introduction

Petitioner asks the Central Student Judiciary (CSJ) to reverse the Final Judgment of case 05-002, on the grounds that the decision was faulty in four main ways:
 

1. The Judgment's conclusion that a Student PIRGIM chapter would be an "Action Organization" is wrong.
2. The Judgment's orders to the Assembly concerning guidelines to protect free speech in the funding process constitute a breech of the separation of powers.
3. The Judgment's orders to the Assembly concerning guidelines to protect free speech in the funding process are based on a misinterpretation of Southworth I and II.
4. Throughout the process, CSJ justices failed to follow numerous procedural practices required by its own manual and the All Campus Constitution, preventing a fair trial. 

Jurisdiction

CSJ has Jurisdiction to hear this appeal by CSJ Manual 51.12 Appellate Subject Matter Jurisdiction (p. 85). 

Petitioner is entitled to appeal by CSJ Manual 51.121 Personal Jurisdiction (p. 85).

Statement of Facts 

1.   The Judgment's conclusion that a Student PIRGIM chapter would be an "Action Organization," is wrong.

Action organizations are defined as:

 (iv) An organization is an action organization if it has the following two characteristics: (a) It's main or primary objective or objectives (as distinguished from its incidental or secondary objectives) may be attained only by legislation or a defeat of proposed legislation; and (b) it advocates, or campaigns for, the attainment of such main or primary objective or objectives as distinguished from engaging in non-partisan political analysis, study, or research and making the results thereof available to the public.[26 C.F.R. 1.501(c)(3)-1(a)(3)(iv)] (emphasis added)

In order to be defined as an action organization, groups must meet criteria outlined in sections (a) and (b).  Meeting one set of criteria but not the other would make Student PIRGIM something other than an action organization. 

The Judgment fails to take both criteria into account.  It reads: "The question of whether Student PIRGIM will 'attempt to influence legislation' remains unanswered" (Final Judgment, p.7).  In other words, the Judgment claims that whether Student PIRGIM will meet criteria (b) to be an action organization remains unanswered.  It then claims: "We are convinced that plaintiff has met his burden of showing that a Student PIRGIM would be an action organization." (Final Judgment, p.7).  This is a blatant contradiction.

Further, the Judgment's conclusion that Student PIRGIM meets criteria (a) is also wrong.  The Judgment grounds this conclusion on an unfounded interpretation of the tactics of Student PIRGIM's proposed Higher Education Campaign, and a seriously flawed interpretation of the IRS definition of "Lobbying".  Moreover, the Judgment claims that the Renter's Rights Campaign will have a legislative component, while providing no evidence to support this (as there is none) and ignores the Mercury Campaign, which has no legislative component.  Even if the Higher Education campaign was strictly legislative (which it is not), given that the other three proposed campaigns are in no way related to legislation, it is impossible to maintain that Student PIRGIM's "main or primary objective or objectives (as distinguished from its incidental or secondary objectives) may be attained only by legislation or a defeat of proposed legislation."

Finally, the Judgment's conclusion is based on evidence disallowed by the CSJ Manual 51.432  Evidence to be Excluded, (a). 

(a)    Evidence which attempts to prove conduct by proving certain character traits (i.e., using a reputation for election violation as proof of an election violation).

All of the evidence provided attempts to prove that Student PIRGIM would engage in "lobbying" because its preceding student group, Students for PIRGIM, has lobbied in the past.

2.  The Judgment's orders to the Assembly concerning guidelines to protect free speech in the funding process constitute a breech of the separation of powers.

This concerns the following orders:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that until such guidelines are established all funding decisions concerning the Committee Discretionary account shall be made through the Budget Priorities Committee using that Committee's rules and guidelines. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED                that the Budget Priorities Committee is empowered to allocate funds directly from the Committee Discretionary account solely for proposals from the Assembly and its sub-bodies in accordance with the decision of this court until such time as MSA constructs guidelines that bring it into compliance with the Southworth cases.

Considering MSA's resources and ability to mobilize students on campus,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these guidelines be constructed with input gathered from the student body at large and that all attempts will be made to incorporate diverse participation including open forums, town hall meetings, acceptance of written proposals and the establishment of a public record posted on the MSA website for review by the campus population.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that such guidelines will not be considered in force until the Central Student Judiciary, in open court and accepting petitions from all interested parties, certifies that the guidelines are compliant with the Southworth decisions.  Such petitions are to be made in writing and CSJ will accept oral presentations from those petitions that represent important issues affecting the student body.  CSJ will take every opportunity to hold oral presentations to accommodate the student body.

Respecting that the requirements of viewpoint neutrality are judicially created, CSJ submits the following:

                IT IS ORDERED that the guidelines must include:

1)   Incorporation into the Compiled Code an explicit policy of viewpoint neutrality in funding decisions,

2)     An application process,

3)      An appeals process within MSA with right to refer the matter to CSJ,

4)       A public record kept of all materials and deliberations,

5)       An application that includes a clear statement of purpose and objectives by which the actions of the organization can be measured,

6)       Penalties for those that violate the policy,

7)       An impartial decision making process including methods for addressing conflicts of interest,

8)       Oversight empowered to investigate and monitor funded organizations,

9)       A requirement that all expenditures are itemized, and

10)    That all hearings be conducted in public

in order to bring MSA into compliance with the five criteria outlined on page three of this decision.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no student organization be funded, sponsored or subsidized from the Committee Discretionary account.  This does not impede the Assembly's, or a Committee, Commission or Taskforce thereof, from cosponsoring specific events and activities with a registered student organization.

The Judgment's orders violate a number of principles of the All Campus Constitution, namely Article II.A of the All-campus Constitution:

Article II

Assembly Powers and Functions

Consistent with the limitations imposed in other sections of this Constitution, the governmental, representative, legislative and coordinating powers and functions of the Assembly shall be as follows:

A. Rules. To make and sanction rules governing students.

In re-arranging the current funding practices of MSA, dictating the manner in which MSA will create guidelines, granting CSJ automatic review of the guidelines once passed by MSA, and requiring certain characteristics of the guidelines, the Judgment's orders amount to enacting legislation, which it does not have the power to do.  Rather than a judicial order, this constitutes a legislative action.

3.  The Judgment's orders to the Assembly concerning guidelines to protect free speech   in the funding process are based on a misinterpretation of Southworth I and II.

The order that Committee Discretionary not be used to fund, sponsor or subsidize student organizations has no basis in the Southworth decisions nor the case at hand.  In effect, the order specifically denies the PIRGIM resolution from being heard, and appears to be a deliberate action to do so.

4.  Throughout the process, CSJ justices failed to follow numerous procedural practices required by its own manual and the All Campus Constitution, preventing a fair trial.

These procedural failings include but are not limited to:

• 51.32 Pre-Trial Conference.  CSJ Justices did not provide the All-Campus Constitution, chapter 51, and the chapters of the Compiled Code that served as bases for the action or contain rules pertaining to the action, as required in section (b). 

• 51.432 Evidence to be Excluded.  As previously mentioned, CSJ allowed evidence that should be excluded under section 51.432 (a).

• 51.715 ,  51.87   Record.  CSJ has not kept accurate records of its trials as required by its manual:

51.715     Record.  CSJ shall keep a record of all decisions made during its deliberations.  The Judiciary shall also prepare all appropriate orders.  All votes taken during deliberations shall be recorded so as to indicate how each justice voted for use in preparing the opinion of the Judiciary.

51.87 Recording of Hearings.  A record of all CSJ pre-trial conferences and hearings shall be made using standard cassette tape recording equipment.

Despite multiple requests, at the time of filing Petitioner has not received a Case File or minutes from the trial from CSJ, which occurred over two weeks ago.  This impedes the ability of the Petitioner to make the best possible appeal.

• All Campus Constitution, Article III.A.4

4. Student General Counsel.  The Student General Counsel shall represent MSA in all legal matters in student judiciaries except where the Assembly shall designate another representative….

In the trial, CSJ allowed another representative to represent MSA.  The Assembly did not designate this representative.

Action Sought 

Petitioner requests that CSJ's Final Judgment in Case 05-002 be reversed, on the grounds that: 1) the "Action Organization" conclusion is wrong; 2) that the Assembly, not CSJ, has the power to construct funding guidelines, which it was already in the process of doing at the time of the trial, and; 3) that the many procedural violations made by CSJ justices during the Case prevented a fair trial.

Respectfully Submitted,
 

Carolyn Hwang

Chair, Students for PIRGIM

 

Hi, all,

MSA Student General Counsel Jesse Levine filed a motion to appeal the Central Student Judiciary ruling on the Student PIRGIM chapter due to many procedural problems (ex. not tape recording the case, not providing CSJ guidelines in a timely manner, etc) and due to questionable demands of the court which may have violated separation of powers (ex. Telling MSA that we can't fund student groups through Discretionary Funds even though there is no rule against it in the Constitution, telling MSA to put our Discretionary Fund money into the Budget Priorities Committee account instead of merely suggesting it and saying we couldn't use discretionary funds until Southworth-compliant guidelines were in place etc). Matt Hollerbach, MSA-LSA rep, wrote up an amicus brief which is available below. Many MSA members (including I) and a few student leaders outside of MSA signed on to it. Please read it and post any questions. Also, I think you can still sign on to the Amicus Brief; e-mail Matt Hollerbach at mwh@umich.edu if you would like to be added as a petitioner.

Yours,

Rese

---

 

Amicus Brief

regarding Assembly appeal of CSJ case 05-002
 

filed on behalf of petitioners of the Assembly, listed herein, pursuant to CSJ Manual of Procedures 51.45

Introduction

We, the petitioners, acknowledge the opinions of the Central Student Judiciary (CSJ) in the final judgment in case 05-002 as being essentially informed by a desire to protect the student body's interest in a fair, open, efficient and legal fund allocation process.

a)      as assuming powers for the Judiciary which are specifically granted to the Assembly in the All-campus Constitution
b)      as compelling the Assembly to action it cannot take without risking violation of the All-campus Constitution and the Compiled Code
c)      as violating or risking the violation of the rights of students as enumerated in the All-campus Constitution
d)      as violating or risking the violation of the rights of student organizations as enumerated in the All-campus Constitution
e)      as not being grounded in any legal theory or precedent known to the petitioners or expressed by the Judiciary

 The final point also brings up concerns about the sections of the ruling which dealt with CSJ's interpretation of Southworth I and II in suggesting and imposing guidelines on the Assembly regarding funding allocations made through the Committee Discretionary account. It is our contention that the judiciary has set the bar unreasonably high, and that precedent clearly shows that the Assembly is being asked to adopt guidelines which go too far and may further risk denying students and organizations their due rights.

Further, we are concerned that the Assembly's counsel in the original case did not adequately represent Assembly interests and violated the Constitution in replacing himself during the main trial hearing.

Further, we are concerned with the failure on the part of CSJ to follow many provisions of its own procedure manual which prevented a fair trial.

Statement of Case

The Judiciary's decision on case 05-002, delivered on 15 March, 2005 by Chief Justice Pierce Beckham to the Assembly's general meeting, violated several provisions of the Constitution. In the orders given in the decision, the Judiciary assumed legislative power granted to the Assembly in Article II.A of the All-campus Constitution:

 Article II

Assembly Powers and Functions

Consistent with the limitations imposed in other sections of this Constitution, the governmental, representative, legislative and coordinating powers and functions of the Assembly shall be as follows:

A. Rules. To make and sanction rules governing students.

 Further, in making orders which assumed these powers, the Judiciary violated the principle of the separation of powers and Article X.F of the All-campus Constitution:

 Article X – Central Student Judiciary

F. Limitations. The Judiciary shall enforce no regulation, the content or origin of which is inconsistent with this Constitution.

Further, several of these orders compelled the Assembly to take action which, unless
amended, would violate the Compiled Code. For the sake of brevity, they will only be referenced here:

·        Article IV.G concerning the Committee Discretionary account, its uses, and the means by which its funds may be allocated

·        Article II.D concerning the Budget Priorities Committee and its oversight of certain Assembly funds

 Further, if these actions are taken by the Assembly and every order followed, the rights of students as enumerated in the All-campus Constitution may be violated. These rights can be placed in two categories – those rights which are violated by the decision and the trial proceedings and those rights which are put at risk by the decision. For the sake of brevity, they will only be referenced here:

Further, if these actions are taken by the Assembly and every order followed, the rights of student organizations as enumerated in the All-campus Constitution may be violated. These rights can be placed in two categories – those rights which are violated by the decision and the trial proceedings and those rights which are put at risk by the decision. For the sake of brevity, they will only be referenced here:

Further, one order issued by the Judiciary is not justified by any campus, municipal, state or federal legal precedent known to the petitioners. Moreover, the rationale for the order cannot be found in the decision and was not expressed by the Chief Justice in his presentation of it. It is the petitioners' concern that this order was made according to an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the aforementioned sections of the Compiled Code. For the sake of brevity, only the order will be referenced here:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no student organization be funded, sponsored or subsidized from the Committee Discretionary account.  This does not impede the Assembly's, or a Committee, Commission or Taskforce thereof, from cosponsoring specific events and activities with a registered student organization.

Further, the Judiciary's opinion on the strictness of guidelines required by Southworth I and II is not justified by the precedent set in those two cases. The Judiciary is compelling the Assembly to implement guidelines which are stricter than is required by legal precedent, and the Judiciary did not qualify its decision in this regard in the Final Judgment. If implemented, these guidelines risk imposing unreasonable regulation on the Assembly, students and their organizations.

Further, the Judiciary's interpretation of tax law, especially as it regards to (c)4 and (c)3 organizations, is also flawed. The Judiciary goes beyond erring on the side of caution, and makes orders which are not grounded in legal precedent. It should always be in the best interests of students that regulations governing them and their activities be based on accepted and relevant legal precedent and a reasonable interpretation of tax code and that these regulations are formulated by their elected representatives, not an appointed body.

Further, the Student General Counsel failed to duly represent the Assembly in the original trial hearing when he appointed the Executive Vice President to represent the Assembly for all but the first hour of the hearing. The Student General Counsel's responsibilities are outlined in the Constitution:

Article II – Internal Structure of M.S.A.

4. Student General Counsel. The Student General Counsel shall represent MSA in all legal matters in student judiciaries except where the Assembly shall designate another representative. S/he shall advise the Assembly and the Steering Committee on the interpretation of the Constitution and the Compiled Code. S/he shall be the Parliamentarian of the Assembly.

It is clear from this provision that the Student General Counsel denied the Assembly the right to be duly represented, as it was not afforded the opportunity to approve the Executive Vice President as a temporary counsel.

Finally, the Judiciary failed to comply with several provisions of its own Manual of Procedures during the course of case 05-002. For the sake of brevity, only the most  obvious violated provisions of the CSJ Manual of Procedures will be referenced here:

51.715 Record. CSJ shall keep a record of all decisions made during its deliberations.  The Judiciary shall also prepare all appropriate orders.  All votes taken during deliberations shall be recorded so as to indicate how each justice voted for use in preparing the opinion of the Judiciary.

51.87 Recording of Hearings.  A record of all CSJ pre-trial conferences and hearings shall be made using standard cassette tape recording equipment.

Additionally, it is worth noting that CSJ failed to provide complete and updated versions of relevant governing and procedural documents to parties at the pre-trial hearing, as provided for in 51.32 of the CSJ Manual of Procedures.

Action Sought

We, the petitioners, hereby file arguments for an appeal to the Final Judgment of case 05-002, in the knowledge that only the Student General Counsel can file an appeal on the Assembly's behalf. We are concerned that his appeal does not cover every interest of the Assembly, and puts student interests at risk in not raising the concerns outlined above. We file this document with CSJ pursuant to CSJ Manual of Procedures 51.45(a) which outlines provisions for non-parties with a substantial interest in the outcome of an action to submit their concerns to the court.

Further, we intend to amend this filing at a future date to further clarify our concerns.

Further, we request to be heard at the pre-trial hearing for the Assembly's official appeal to the final judgment in case 05-002 pursuant to CSJ Manual of Procedures 51.45(b) which outlines provisions for non-parties with a substantial interest in the outcome of an action to request to be heard at hearings.

Further, we intend to file to join the Assembly's official appeal of case 05-002 at a future date at such a time as we are confident that all Assembly concerns and interests will be represented by such a filing.

Further, we would seek a stay of enforcement regarding the orders made in the final judgment of case 05-002, with the stipulation that the Assembly will not allocate funds from Committee Discretionary until guidelines protecting free speech and providing for viewpoint neutrality are in place.

Further, we would seek a thorough examination of procedural transgressions made during the original case which may have violated the rights of all parties.

Further, we would seek to have our arguments entered in the public record, in light of the Student General Counsel's failure to address the concerns of the petitioners.

Finally, we would seek a thorough, detailed and expedited reversal of the Judiciary's decision which shall

in light of the concerns addressed above. 

Submitted by,

The petitioners: 

Nicole Campbell, Rackham Representative
Matt Hollerbach, LSA Representative
Charles Adside III, LSA Representative & Community Service Commission Co-chair
Riana Anderson, LSA Representative & Minority Affairs Commission
Lisa Bakale-Wise, LSA Representative & Women's Issues Commission Co-chair
Ryan Bates, Peace and Justice Commission Co-chair
Elizabeth Graham, Environmental Issues Commission Co-chair
Mike Forester, LSA Representative & External Relations Committee Vice-Chair
Brittany Fox, LSA Representative & External Relations Committee Chair
Ashwini Hardikar, Peace and Justice Commission Co-chair
Laurel Harris, Music Representative
Brian Hull, Assembly Treasurer
Ellen Kolasky, Environmental Issues Commission Co-chair
Jaffer Odeh, Medicine Representative
Desmond Patton, Social Work Representative
Kate Stenvig, Rackham Representative
Ben Royal, Rackham Representative
Tim Wiggins, LSA Representative
Clarah Hardie, Amnesty International Core Member
Elizabeth Higgins, Student-at-large
Evan Major, Executive Director, The Detroit Project

Hi, all,

I know this topic is really technical and not the most fun for the average student who really isn't inclined to read MSA Compiled Code, but it's very important for student groups and student leaders who want to do great projects and tasks for campus. MSA does not have discretionary fund guidelines and cannot allocate money from discretionary funds until they are in place. MSA's discretionary fund account is all funds not budgetted to any other MSA accounts. The discretionary fund account has been used to fund important MSA services like AirBus or the buses to Washington, DC and on-campus events like Earth Week or the Black and Brown Tie Affair.

In Southworth vs. The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, the Supreme Court said that student fees need to be allocated in a viewpoint neutral manner, meaning that the group's viewpoint or opinions can't be taken into account when deciding whether or not to fund a group. They also required that an appeals process is available to students applying for funds. If MSA can pass this resolution and establish guidelines ensuring these requirements are put in place, we can be on the way to using disretionary funds, again. However, we want student input on these guidelines. Please read the following resolution and post any questions. Also check out the Center of Campus Free Speech's website for more information on student fees, and Southworth.

Yours,

Rese

---

Resolution to Provide Southworth-Compliant Discretionary Fund Guidelines in MSA's Compiled Code

Sponsors:        

Rese Fox, External Relations Chair, MSA-LSA Rep

Charles Adside, Community Service Commission Co-Chair, MSA-LSA Rep

 Whereas, the Supreme Court stated that mandatory student fees must be allocated in a "viewpoint neutral fashion" in Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth; and,

Whereas, in Southworth II the 7^th District Appellate Court approved University of Wisconsin-Madison's funding guidelines because they ensured Southworth compliance; and,

 Whereas, MSA's Compiled Code does not offer specific guidelines for Discretionary Fund allocation to ensure viewpoint neutrality and other specifications from Southworth and Southworth II; and,

 Whereas, Discretionary Fund guidelines may safeguard MSA from lawsuits concerning viewpoint neutral fee allocation; and,

Whereas, Donica Varner from the Office of the General Counsel advised MSA to not allocate any fees until guidelines were put in place to ensure Southworth and Southworth II compliance; and,

 Whereas, the MSA Compiled Code IV.2.g currently reads:

g. Committee Discretionary. The MSA Committee Discretionary shall be used by the Assembly for expenditures on specific projects and tasks. The amount budgeted to the Committee Discretionary account from the General Account by the annual budget shall consist of all funds not budgeted to any other MSA account. 

Therefore, be it further resolved that MSA Compiled Code Article IV.2.g shall be changed to read:

       g. Committee Discretionary. The MSA Committee Discretionary shall be used by the Assembly for expenditures on specific projects and tasks. The amount budgeted to the Committee Discretionary account from the General Account by the annual budget shall consist of all funds not budgeted to any other MSA account.

i.         Assembly members must make funding decisions in a viewpoint neutral manner.

a.        Viewpoint neutral funding means:

                                                         i.            Funding decisions cannot be made based on a group, project or task's point of view. 

                                                       ii.            Funding decisions shall be based on objective criteria such as fiscal responsibility, level of services provided to the student body and relevance to the mission of the University.

ii.        The resolution or resolution sponsors must articulate reasons why the resolution should be considered by the Assembly instead of the Budget Priorities Committee or Community Service Commission.  These reasons may include, but are no limited to:

a.        An emergency or unexpected expense.

b.       The funding request falls outside the funding guidelines of the Budget Priorities Committee and Community Service Commission.

iii.      Objective criteria, not the viewpoint of a group or resolution, shall guide the Assembly in their decision. These criteria include, but are not limited to:

a.      A group, project, or task must have a detailed mission, goal and plan.

b.      The resolution must include a clear statement of purpose and objectives by which the actions of the group, project or task can be measured.

c.        The funding resolution must include a detailed, itemized budget.

d.       All budget line items must be consistent with the aforementioned mission, goals and plan.

e.        The budget must be fiscally responsible.

f.         The resolution must include a timetable for implementation.

g.       The resolution should include other organizations, if any, participating in the activity.

h.       The resolution should include other sources contacted for funding, if any, and the amount received.

i.         The resolution must demonstrate how it or the activity contributes to the University's educational mission.

iv.      Students who believe that MSA or its members did not act in accordance with aforementioned guidelines i.-iii. shall appeal said decision to the Central Student Judiciary.

a.        The appeals process will follow operating procedures as outlined by the Central Student Judiciary Manual of Procedures.

v.       If funding is allocated, the organization must report back to the Treasurer the results of the group, project or task.  Reports to the Treasurer must be made in a reasonable timeframe that is relative to the timeline in the resolution. 

a.                  Treasurer will include these reports in his/her report to the Assembly.  "Results" is understood to mean:

                                                        i.            The outcome of the project or task, or

                                                      ii.            The group's progress towards stated goals.

b. The funded organization must supply the Treasurer with receipts or proof of expenses within two weeks of expense.

                                                    i.            If an expense does not occur within the original timeframe, the organization may supply the treasurer with a written explanation.

                                                    ii.            If an organization does not provide said explanation within two weeks of original expected date of expense, the Treasurer may transfer those funds back into Committee Discretionary.

                                                      iii.            If an organization communicates to the Treasurer that a specific line item expense is no longer needed, the Treasurer may transfer those funds back into Committee Discretionary.

vi.      MSA shall deny discretionary funding to an organization if it feels that an organization did not act in accordance with the requested funding budget or purpose as outlined in the resolution and objectives as outlined in guidelines iii.

Hi, all,

Below I've posted a survey for AAUM Campus Neighbors to help us prioritize work to be done. MSA just put money towards a staff member for AAUM CN, so PLEASE fill out this survey by copying it to a word document and then e-mailing it back to Prof. Elisabeth Gerber <ergerber@umich.edu> so that students' concerns can be heard!  I know this is probably looks really sloppy, so please excuse my computer/blogging illiteracy. If you want it as a word document, please e-mail me at <britfox@umich.edu>. I posted this survey with permission from Professor Gerber. FYI, if you are a student, your "Stakeholder group" is "student." Thank you!

Yours,

Rese

Note: I deleted the Housing Survey because they are not being collected anymore and I exceeded this month's bandwidth. If you would like the survey, please email me.

Ann Arbor Campus Neighborhoods Improvement Task Force

Where has my head been? The lovely, qualified Students 4 Michigan MSA and LSA-SG candidates for the 2005 University of Michigan student government elections are working hard to earn your vote on March 23rd and 24th (THIS Wednesday and Thursday). I encourage you all to read the platforms of the candidates at www.votes4m.com. (PS: I L-O-V-E Tim Wiggins' pink post-it declaring "I *heart* PIRGIM" during the flash intro to the S4M website ... I just found out that Tim has a blog, too: http://tim4msa.blog.com ... his seat isn't up this election, though). S4M even has a blog! The platforms of other candidates are available at https://vote.www.umich.edu. Go to "Pre-Election Preview."

Here is some Daily coverage of the election:
3.17.05  "Ethnic remarks stir MSA elections" by Donn M. Fresard

3.15.05 "MSA election board questioned over bias" by Jeremy Davidson

3.07.05 "Assembly hopefuls announce candidacy" by Jameel Naqvi

2.28.05 "Levine enters sparse MSA presidential race" by Donn M. Fresard

Hi, all,

Carolyn Hwang, the Chair of Students for PIRGIM, and I submitted a viewpoint to the Daily yesterday. It detailed some of the problems we've been facing in getting a Student PIRGIM pilot chapter at University of Michigan. We also got a lovely LTE in response (the third one down), called "scathing" by my very own mother.

I've repeatedly said that I appreciate criticism. However, I feel Mr. Weiler's comments are not entirely accurate or appropriate.

First of all, it seems that Mr. Weiler does not understand the Southworth ruling. In fact, his argument seems exactly in line with Scott Southworth's, the law student who reasoned that his student fees should not go towards groups or projects that he disagreed with because that created "compelled speech" and violated his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Scott Southworth was wrong and that college campuses must be a "marketplace of ideas" and that all ideas must be given the chance to be funded, even if some students find them disagreeable. Here are some excerpts from the Southworth ruling:

"The speech the University seeks to encourage in the program before us is distinguished not by discernable limits but by its vast, unexplored bounds. To insist upon asking what speech is germane would be contrary to the very goal the University seeks to pursue. It is not for the Court to say what is or is not germane to the ideas to be pursued in an institution of higher learning."

"It is all but inevitable that the fees will result in subsidies to speech which some students find objectionable and offensive to their personal beliefs."

The Southworth ruling also said that funds must be dispersed in a viewpoint neutral manner. Overall, it expanded, not limited, what types of groups could be funded by student fees. The CSJ ruling was not in line with Southworth because it focused on outcomes of funding allocations, not the viewpoint neutral process in which fees should be allocated. However, the CSJ ruling did state that we need discretionary fund guidelines, which I wholeheartedly agree with: I introduced a resolution to fix this problem.

Secondly, Mr. Weiler's concerns about the alleged political leanings of a Student PIRGIM chapter are unfounded due to the way a Student PIRGIM chapter is set up to operate. Our planned campaigns hardly seem partisan: we hope to increase renter rights by starting a hotline and workwith professors to reduce the costs of textbooks.I would hope that Mr. Weiler doesn't find the our initial campaigns "disagreeable"; these are major problems in Ann Arbor and I haven't run across anyone on campus who feels he or she should be paying more for textbooks or knows his or her renter's rights far too well.   Furthermore, the Student PIRGs are issue-based organizations without set agendas to prevent our chapter from being boxed into one partisan category or another. We would have a Student Board that would determine the issues that the chapter would work on, and Mr. Weiler or anyone of any political ideology would be able to participate in the chapter and run for election to the Board. This is in no way similar to funding Republican or Democratic Policy Centers because anyone from any side could become active in the Student PIRGIM chapter and run to be on the Student Board. Finally, because our Student PIRGIM would be a 501(c)(3) organization, it will not use issue scorecards because that practice is a little too cozy with "attempting to influence legislation," an indication that a group is lobbying, which Student PIRGIM said it would not do.

On a personal side note: if Mr. Weiler has issues he wants to work on that can be solved by free market methods, as an econ major I would be more than willing to listen. I would hope that he would still acknowledge that free markets sometimes result in externalities that should be accounted for in policy. I just read a book on rolling back regulations and allowing businesses more flexibility in pollution control called Reinventing Regulation: Lessons from Project XL. Flexible business practice in reducing emissions is one segment of environmental protection in which I think is underdeveloped. I wish more could be done to allow businesses with strong environmental track records to not have so much oversight from the EPA.

I do appreciate Mr. Weiler's comments because this allowed me to address concerns and misunderstandings about our proposal. If anyone has any more questions, please feel free to post them or e-mail them to me at britfox@umich.edu.

Rese

Hi, All,

The Regents meeting was very well attended today. I gave a quick report of the DC Summit and the External Relation Committee's work on federal higher education funding.

New Arthur Miller Theatre/Walgreen Drama Center

The Regents were introduced to new developments and plans on the Walgreen Drama Center. Regent Fischer Newman thought that more time needed to be spent on the parking issue. Karl Stampfl from the Daily wrote an article on this.

Jason's Goodbye

Jason Mironov, the President of MSA, gave his last report to the Regents before his term ends 2 Tuesdays from now. He did an excellent job: his speech was heartfelt and entertaining, as always. He covered the things he had learned during his term on MSA and why he was thankful for his undergraduate education at University of Michigan.

Transgender Protection

 There was a large group of students and faculty who came to applaud Provost Courant's work to protect transgendered students on campus, but they thought that placing transgender discrimination under "sex" was not adequate. After hearing many of them speak, I agree. It's a stretch to think that transgender issues fall under sex and that the general populace would interpret the University's anti-discriminination clause that way. Hopefully the Regents and the new Provost will fix this problem.

Wheelchair Accessibility in the Big House

Three gentlemen came and spoke about their tribulations in finding seating in the Big House due to handicap accessibility. Right now there is not enough handicap seating and it is not well-dispersed. The constituents told of times when they had difficulty staying with their party during games due to crowdedness and how people often sat in their seats. Regent Deitch (I think ... I'm still working on names) and President Coleman enthusiastically said that they would take on this issue and make sure that handicap accessibility improved with the renovations of the Big House.

Free Palestine Group

There was a large deligation in support of freeing Palestine at the Regents Meeting, but no one spoke during Constituents' Time. They covered their mouths with fabric and scarves, which I speculate was to portray that they felt their voices were silenced by MSA not passing the Investigative Committee Resolution. It's really good that they came to the meeting, but I wish there was another way or vehicle for them to have access to the Regents. Way too many Regents left during Constituents' Time, which really seems unfair (I don't know their names well enough to post them fairly, but next meeting I will keep track and post them for you). I wish that Constituents' Time were at the beginning of the meeting so that the Regents couldn't skip out on hearing what their constituents have to say to them. After all, these are the people who they are accountable for and who elected them.

That's it for now.

Rese