Dear President Reilly, We write to you with a request to review an irreconcilable difference 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 ndings 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. 0 We would like to express great concern regarding the legitimacy of the ndings discovered and 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 Investigative 0 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 ndings. 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 les, 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 0 UWM students. The USC has given careful thought and deliberation to every election complaint brought before it. UWM Administration 0 has sought to interfere, inuence and circumvent these processes through 0 investigation

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 complaint 0 against 0 the election was withdrawn by the 0 petitioner and a relevant complaint regarding a Registered Student Organization (RSCO) is still in process and 0 will be going 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 student representation 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 question 0 meritless and without regard for our internal 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 0 grave implications not only for 0 shared governance at UWM, 0 but for the unique and celebrated model of shared governance within the UW-System. 0 0 UW-Whitewater 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 effort 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 Affairs 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

rights 0 under Chapter 36.09, but the faculty, the academic staff and all others granted 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 in which the students determine? This is a question that may have precedent in practice but has no specic precedent in court. We are more than condent 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 nds 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 innite 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.