Tyranny in the SA Senate

About two hours ago most of the hope I had for SA and its effectiveness was dashed. Now this doesn't have much to do with the conservative dominance in SA. Nor is it because most of the comments on my article "One vote, One choice?" on the online edition of "The Post" strayed from the main point of the article. My anger and frustration has everything to do with the absurdly tyrannical behavior of Speaker of the Senate Kyle Duerstein. Duerstein should be ashamed of his professional misconduct today, his rude and illegal actions brought senators from both sides of the isle together in an attempt to remove him from the meeting. These attempts failed, thanks in part to the approval of three new senators, whose first action in SA was to reinforce Durstein's dictatorship. These people will unfailingly let down the students time and time again over their tenure in the senate.

For those of you who weren't at the meeting, the issue began with Duerstein's refusal to accept motions for roll-call vote concerning a bill (SR 09-100-01) on the floor to condemn the march 4th protest. Duerstein ignored the request, and proceeded claim the "Ayes" won the vote. Honestly, I could be biased in claiming the "Nays" indeed won, but regardless of who actually had more votes, a more exact procedure was called for. Even after the deputy speaker and many senators claimed it was too close to call, Duerstein refused to begin another vote. Later on I attempted to object to the decision of the chair, but again, the vote overulled me.

Today's senate meeting should be an important lesson to the future Speakers of the Senate on how not to act. I look forward to attending meetings chaired by someone, anyone else next semester, because as far as Speakers go, it can't get much worse than this.

"The Post" filmed the first vote on the bill:
http://www.uwmpost.com/2010/03/09/video-controversial-voice-vote-at-march-9-sa-senate-meeting/

A Letter to The UWM Post and SA's one party state

After being seated as an "At Large" senator, one would assume I'd be happy enough not to criticize the establishment. No such luck. A couple of days ago SA's official candidate list was released. It turns out there won't be one competitively elected seat this year. I am firmly opposed to this, and decided to write a letter to The Post. I would include the letter here, but blogger won't let me transfer a document. The letter will be included in tomorrow's issue of The Post, so anyone interested can check it out.

Instead of reitertating my points from the letter here, I'll include my thoughts on something I only learned thursday. Of the 34 seats open, 31 will go to member of UWM's one and only political party, ASAP. (acheiving student action through progress) That means besides myself, there are only two other independants! Can you say "one party state?" I believe this has to do with certain rules in the SA permitting a party to run candidates for senator if and only if they also run a candidate for the presidential/vice-presidential ticket. I intend to introduce a bill soon, hopefully with the sponsership of the other two independants in the election, to strike that clause from the election laws. Hopefully that will lead to other parties being active on campus.

My second senate meeting is coming up tuesday, and I hope to vote on a lot of legislation. I also hope to see a lot of spectators in the back, which brings me to another idea I've had recently. The senate should make time at the end of meetings to carry out a question and answer sessions with the people who show up to the meetings. It is nessesary for the people to feel dutifully represented in the SA.