UW-Madison is making history this week by becoming the first large university to appoint an openly gay president/chancellor. Biddy Martin, an open lesbian, is apparently taking a pay cut from her current number two spot at Cornell to come lead the only Big 10 university that still does not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships for employee benefits.

Although Martin understandably downplayed the role her sexual orientation will play during her tenure, her selection no doubt sends a strong message to the stubborn legislators who have repeatedly blocked attempts to extend to gay university employees what is expected in the generally modest-paying field of academia (note that modest still means upper-middle class).

Whether or not she fashions herself so, Martin will inevitably be the face of the movement to secure domestic partnerships from the legislature, as the politicians opposing the measure will have to go up against her, and if she proves to be a popular chancellor, the battle will be all the more difficult.

As he walked up to the table centered in the Capitol View, Tim Mulcahy started off with a joke.

"I didn't do it," he said in front of the one microphone on the table, adding a smile. The initial impression was a good one -- humor is always a good icebreaker. But for a man who was all-business in his approach and opening statements, it was easy to gather that student relations were farthest from his mind at that moment.

"The university needs to decide what it's strategies and priorities are for the future, who we need to engage as stakeholders and establish partnerships."

As Vice President of research at the University of Minnesota, it's easy to see his focus is on fundraising, donations, funding, etc. But something else came up. Something that reminded me of the constant spectre of this university, Rep. Stephen Nass.

" I think, to be honest with you, there are going to be needs to look at what we currently do now and say, "do we need to be doing all the things we do now? Are there better ways for some of our programs to be delivered? Are these programs more appropriate at one of the other [UW] System schools?"

When I sat down with Mr. Nass earlier this year, he mentioned the fact that many UW System programs (especially teaching programs) were redundancies and could use some cutting throughout the UW System.

The difference here is that this man could be in charge of a campus where one can make the argument for having all these diverse areas of research and education under one roof. In fact, that is the very strength of the UW-Madison campus -- it's multi-faceted nature and strengths across many different disciplines.

I'd be in favor of having some fiscal responsibility around here, but I'm just unsure whether Mr. Mulcahy's type of reevaluation would be appropriate for this university.

More accurately, I'm not sure Mulcahy himself would be appropriate for the university.

The student reception seemed to indicate as much. There's a stark contrast between him and yesterday's candidate, Carolyn "Biddy" Martin. The difference is that she started out by asking students about UW, whereas Mulcahy did the same, but didn't actually seem that interested in their viewpoint.

Take for instance, his approach to Shared Governance:
He starts off by saying Minnesota is stronger because it has a unified student and faculty senate (which, wouldn't be a bad idea, actually) and then says the following:

At some point someone has an obligation to make a decision...the Chancellor and senior leadership need to access those governance structures to get advice... I think, personally, It's the responsibility of the Chancellor...is to hear from all the constituencies and be to be sure that decisions are based on input, where appropriate, from the right groups..

He says that he would try to allow students to distribute funds where appropriate, but there is a line that needs to be drawn where he may need to intervene.
To me, you don't feel the need to mention that outright unless you plan on having to curb students from the outset.

But that wasn't the biggest problem one student had with him. Dan Stuntebeck, a grad student in the Library/information studies and an activist for animal rights, asks him about releasing information to the public.

While Mulcahy gives a very cautious answer to that question and states that certain "faculty and staff need to be protected," the start of his answer recognizes the need for "animal rights."

It was very obvious that Mulcahy knew who this guy was. Perhaps it had to do with this website? Apparently, the search and screen committee had problems with the same student activists during their meetings.

Questions about diversity? Direct them elsewhere, because this guy had no clue about it. A bunch of vague remarks about "always looking for new strategies." But here's the biggest concern:

I don't know if he didn't know enough about it or just plain forgot it existed, but he repeated the phrase, "I haven't thought of [Plan] 2008 in 2008." His response about what to do with diversity initiative was a long rambling reply about reaching out to "representative learning groups of any type" and being "creative" with our solutions and not being afraid to borrow ideas from others. But I really have to stress this point with his summation: "The university has done a credible job, but not an incredible job."

The fact that he was a faculty member here from 1985 to 2005 and an administrator for some of that time and cannot articulate any of the goals of Plan 2008 is absolutely pathetic.
If minorities on campus are looking for a champion, this guy probably isn't it.

The litany of cringe worthy responses stretch on -- when the subject of alcohol comes up, he mentions that he doesn't want to "close down the bars" but thinks "we need to work with merchants" to stop underage access to alcohol. Sounds like him and CNI would be very happy together.

Oh, and Chapter 17/18 changes? Supports it:

"I think so, the point is you are a student of this university, a representative of this university and to the extent that you do things that you wouldn't do or would prohibited on campus that are unlawful off campus I think there should be a consequence because it interacts with the community. Now, again, I don't know the specifics of what the measures are...[it] runs everywhere from a warning to capital punishment...*nervous laughter*"

There's far more to say that speaks against him, but let me put it this way.

If we're to have a strong university, we need a chancellor that can really take it to the Legislature and fight for us, but also bring in funds from private sources and, in doing so, move toward more innovative uses of our resources. This guy may be a guard dog in getting funds, but I get that he would be far more authoritarian in every other aspect than John Wiley was. I see him limiting student government, sweeping our dearth of diversity under the carpet and being quite amenable to cutting back in certain areas in this university. It should be noted that I think that last part is not a bad idea if done correctly.

Basically, to me, he's a harsher Wiley without the charm. Add to that the baggage of a whole new brand of emboldened activists (these ones who have been known to cause far more trouble than just a few protests) and it seems that you would have to think this man is going to be a money-making machine for this university if he is actually a strong contender. And according to this WSJ article, he has already done a lot for both UW and Minnesota in terms of rolling in the funds.

If that's our number one priority, I say, fine, choose him. But don't expect students to embrace him. Or for the entire faculty to throw their arms around him.

Because I didn't see a vision.
Or a strategy.
Just a philosophy backed up with a "We've gotta roll up our sleeves" mentality and plan for more revenue.

Maybe that's enough. We'll have another day and candidate to help us decide.

The reception for students finally eased up and allowed them to form a circle. It looks like this format will continue for the last two candidates as well.

Still, the punch they're serving is filled with raspberries. Yet, no spoons. Pity.

Biddy was certainly more impressive than Sandefur. The best way to describe her style is inquisitive. But, for the remainder of these visits, let me focus on the Student Reception. Why? Frankly, the press asks about five questions and then leaves.

- "I actually want to ask you about Facebook," she jokes. It's obvious from the get-go that she is actually interested in what students have to say. Goes around asking students where they're from, makes some comments about what she knows, asks them some extra questions. Makes remarks to me about the Johnson family and their philanthropy. (I'm from Racine, SC Johnson corporate headquarters.)

-One of the first questions is about professor salaries. She says that during her time at Cornell, they tried to identify their high-class professors and work on keeping them. However, she notes that many of the professors have an emotional investment in moving once they have that mindset. However, one notable thing she said on the subject was that in order to bring Cornell prof. salaries up to the median it "meant taking money from other places" to fill in those gaps. She made a bold decision earlier in her career by proposing the biological sciences break up into different schools. That sort of reorganization comes up later.

When asked about the Legislature supporting this university and the argument made that there needs to be a greater focus on undergraduate education (Stephen Nass to the rescue!) she said that UW has to make a greater case for the benefit of students being at at a research university of this caliber. That having been said, she noted "it's unrealistic to think they will cover the costs."

Someone asks about Shared Governance. Strangely enough, she supports letting students make a number of decisions on their own and said she'd be in favor of an "open door" policy in meeting with her. At Cornell, there was a policy of posting office hours on the Chancellor's door for meeting times. She said she would support having something along those lines here. Lots of looks of joy from people in the room. The question is how do you actually make yourself accessible? Chancellor Wiley usually spent more of his time traveling and fund-raising than sitting in his office. But "Biddy" seems better at student relations from her outward demeanor, so maybe that's possible.

At some point, we asked about segregated fees. Probably not the best idea. WISPIRG was there, which led to the oft-neglected issue of contract status. She was trying to understand the idea, but most of those in the room who tried to explain realized from the get go that it's not appropriate for a discussion like this. I'm surprised she didn't just say "Well, I don't know enough about your system" and move on. She really tried to get a firm grasp on our system of distribution. All in good time.

An interesting question came from Shayna Hetzel (graduate student, former WUD bigwig and current Union membership director) near the end of the discussion: How do you address the increasing centralization in universities? She cites a few examples where, for instance, a medical school would partner together with the arts to create a more integrated learning experience. The status of the university goes up, but the ranking of the individual department goes down. Biddy acknowledges that a balance needs to be struck, but seems to come down on the side of a liberalizing experience. Mentions a program run at Cornell that had everyone reading the same book before school started for the purposes of an integrated learning program. In the end she says that there is a benefit to grouping together sciences and humanities to "create a greater sense of intellectual community and shared good." Hmm. Was Meiklejohn house looking for an upgrade?

Our Editorial Board Chairman Ryan Masse asked one question in particular that got an interesting answer. He asked what her opinion was on "racial preferences" being exercised by the university.

Martin: What do you mean by that?

Masse: Affirmative Action.

Martin: And what do you mean by affirmative action, exactly?

Masse: Well...racial preferences! *followed by some laughter*

While she admitted this is a "naive view" given that she doesn't know the processes and limitations of the university, she mentioned possibly trying to look more toward out of state residents given the low amount of diversity here. Obviously, this is not all that possible given the 75% in-state quota. That is, unless the holistic admissions process takes it up a notch. Considering she said the university should "push as hard as possible within the law" to achieve diversity, perhaps we'll see more aggressive interpretation of that system?

In terms of personal interaction, she seems like she'd be a great benefit to the student body. Whether she'd be as active in fundraising as Wiley was has yet to be seen, but she seems to have a good idea of how professors need to be retained, she has a strong humanities background that could keep certain L&S departments afloat and she certainly has a more expansive vision for this university than what Sandefur mentioned. Several times, she mentioned globalization as a force to be reckoned with in the international learning community and mentioned Cornell's campuses abroad.

The problem, of course, is defending these stances and funding them. And if that's her weak spot, it certain is Wednesday's candidate's forte.

With the chancellor finalists visiting this campus during finals week, it's pretty likely that few students will make it out to any of these meetings. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to give my impressions of the candidates, starting with College of Letters and Science Dean Gary Sandefur.

Bottom line: Nothing impressive today. Sandefur seems like a nice guy, but too softspoken and non-committal.

During the press conference, most of his answers were vague enough not to arouse any follow-up questioning:

How will he handle the Legislature? Said he wants an open dialogue between his office and the Capitol so that it doesn't just seem like we pester them when we want something. Probably a good idea, but I wonder if his tone will change at all when forced to deal with people like Nass and Suder head on. Plus, let us not forget that the sociology department was targeted by Nass as being a left-wing teaching unit. Sandefur is a sociologist by training, is he not? I doubt they'll be picking daisies together, regardless.

As for private fundraising, he seemed up to the task, noting that as dean of the College of L&S, he already spends about 30% of his time fundraising anyway. Didn't realize it was that much.

Our new news editor asked a question about Plan 2008, but Sandefur seemed to have little to say on the subject. He noted the success of the PEOPLE and Posse programs, but there was nothing specific mentioned.

In fact, when someone asked during the press conference if he had any specific plans or visions (other than tearing down humanities) for the university, he didn't really have anything to say.

However uneventful the press conference was, the student "reception" provided at least one or two highlights.

First off, it was a sign of how nervous this committee is about the search process. When discussion got a little more heated and some tougher questions were asked, not only was it stressed by the people handling the event that "this is not a public forum" but I was told to turn off my camera in the middle of the discussion. I refused, but still seemed to unnerve the people in the room from the search committee.

As for the questions asked by the 8 or 9 students who showed up...
Ashok Kumar came with one question: If the student workers wanted to unionize, would you recognize that right? Sandefur didn't exactly answer that question, saying he would have to see if the workers had a significant desire to organize in this way, but he said he definitely supports a group's right to organize for purposes of collective bargaining.

"I understand there might be some benefits for students, but there might also be some downsides too that we want to make sure..."

Ashok: "Like what?"

Sandefur: "Well, I don't know! I'm just saying it's something you'd want to look at and think about and talk about before you just plunge ahead."

Ashok: "Well, it's good to hear that you support unions."

Sandefur: "Well, it's easy to say!"

One person asked him how he would redirect funds from federal grants to non-science departments like the arts and humanities. Sandefur says that the arts and humanities are very hard to direct federal funding toward these areas, but that what he wants to do is direct private gifts and foundations' support toward the humanities.

After this, Erik Paulson tries to remind the people there that this is not a "hammer-the-candidate" style open forum and it's intended to be one-on-one personal experiences to give some idea what the issues are (the same thing Suchita attempted to tell me in order to get me to shut my camera off).

Kumar interrupts at this point to try and argue that this event was billed as a question-and-answer session and says that he's going to "keep on asking questions." Paulson tries to stress the individual nature of this "reception" again, but is cut off by an unidentified man to my left:

"I think you're actually treading on some kind of dangerous ground and I would just trust that the people would ask questions that Dean Sandefur would be able to handle...and if it's a difficult question, I'll help him, because I'll stand up for Dean Sandefur whereever he's at."

There's one more question asked about the "Republican" Legislature and another question from a few band members about how there was so much scrutiny for them but doesn't seem to be that much with the fraternities considering what they've been accused of.

He doesn't give any groundbreaking answers. Repeats his previous Legislature answer and says that the hazing situation should be guided by our set guidelines and leadership of these institutions. *shrug*

I leave as he's going over Plan 2008 again, saying he believes in the "legal justification" for diversity. What? Is that to assume some colleges practice an illegal justification?

All in all, I look forward to seeing the other candidates throughout the week, but if one thing needs to be improved, it's letting the students ask what they want to ask and allowing the reception to take more of a public forum style. Just because the candidates "can't commit" to anything during this time doesn't mean they don't have ideas that would help us decide between one and the other. And furthermore, the students aren't even making the ultimate decision, so why are you so concerned about them asking tough questions of an individual who might indeed become their next chancellor?

Carolyn "Biddy" Martin tomorrow. Video compilation of the candidates will be posted at the end of the week.

Edit: According to Mr. Oliveira Jr., PEOPLE program is more directed at minorities than Posse. Posse is not even funded through Plan 2008 and is more about a diverse group of student leaders, but it is not specific to minorities. PEOPLE is funded through 2008.

Let's see if this ends up meaning anything. 6:34 Open Forum starts. Nothing exciting so far. 6:37 People are speaking on behalf of finance chair. Wiegand supports Chou, Minor supports Fung. 6:38 Jeff Wright let's people know he's going to form a constitutional committee in order to move toward a presidential system. Direct election. It's a start! Hasn't said anything about whether he's staying... 6:40 Rep. Olson - What other reforms are you looking at? Wright - other legislation might come up that addresses this tonight...Campus Relations coming back into the fold? Student Council would also write off on all campaigns and initiatives. Same thing we've heard before, but thankfully it's being said at the table. 6:43 Adam Porton - Here's what I'd love to see ASM take on next year: - Focus on Tuition and textbook costs - Highly complex and requires a nuanced study to see where ASM can fit in. - Meeting with people in the community during the summer -Legislation can be affixed, use the Regent's report to take action on. -ASM can never do this alone (WISPIRG? No, apparently UC.) -Increase voter turnout - use our positions for leverage with politicians (Um. Yeah, about time.) -Establish Shared Gov. process to oversee GPR dollars -"Frankly, no one cares what it's called. They only care that it gets done." 6:48Jess Pavlic - Why should we be involved with United Council when they advocate for freezing tuition? "It's only the sum of it's parts...Frankly, I think we should take it over." "They are, at best, ignored, at worst, laughed at." Sol: Is there a reason those seats are never filled? Porton basically answers that ASM dropped the ball on it, that's why. 6:51 Sol: Technically, I'm the presiding officer of every branch of ASM. There is one thing I'd like to do: I'd like to sign a proclamation - to remember "Student Government." Oh Sol, I love you! Signed into "law." Ok Sol. 6:55 - btw, Gallagher is right next to me watching along with Adam and Gerald Cox Constitutional Bylaw Ad-Hoc Committee - would allow students to serve (yes! Regular students!) Timeline - Approval of a new constitution in Fall 2008 ASM Election would allow Presidential officer to take office after 2009 Spring Elections 7:00 Rep. Wallach - doesn't Presidential system put ASM at risk of having an unqualified "chair?" Rep. Wright: "That operates under the assumption that people serving on this committee are necessarily qualified." Makes a point - maybe having an exciting election will mean SC elections will have to raise the bar. One can only hope. 7:05 Move to close question and answer. Debate. Carter: I am 150, 200 percent in favor of this. To remove the section regarding the presidential section would be absolutely foolish. I'm from an SEC school and we don't have nearly as proactive of a government as we have here (Ha!) but they have 15-16 percent turnout - and it's because of a presidential system. Slates are debatable, but it leads to a centralization of discussion. Good. Now what are the detractors? 7:08 Rep. Bembenek - Great idea, we could use a figurehead (STOP USING THAT TERM!) But I'm disappointed I wouldn't be able to join this committee - closed committee Tackett is concerned that the Grads would have a hard time serving on this committee. 7:11 Wallach: I don't outright support the Presidential system, but I'll support this committee. Great. So let's move on and stop patting ourselves on the back. Gosselin: We need to get into the constitution and fix it. More possibilities. Also, need more non-ASM members - 5. 7:15 Wiegand - not a bad thing is this president doesn't come from ASM. Composition of committee should be larger - about 15 or 13 people. SSFC operated at it's height with 13 people. (5 SC, 7 additional members, 3 Chairs) Call the question: Unanimous - 21-0. Alright. We got some progress here. 7:25 Alright, we're doing cleanup here. I'll let you know if anything important comes up. Graduate representation has to be there. etc. 7:34 Point of information - in the middle of debate on the composition, Alex Gallagher is debating discussing GPR dollars funding instructional costs, tuition increases and domestic partner benefits with Adam Porton. That sounds far more interesting. 7:43 After approval of the amendment to the amendment and other auxillary points, they're voting on the actual resolution. Passes. Great. Move on. For the love of god. 7:43 Chair nominations - Wright declines! Tackett says the Chair election should be postponed until June. Wright says it too. Whoa. Come on. This is ridiculous. I'd run for Chair, but I think that'd be a conflict of interest. 7:53 Try to elect an interim-chair. Brilliant! 7:58 Carter: Lots of transitions and not a lot of working. Let's just go with Vice-Chair holding it down for awhile. 8:06 Wright asks for a show of hands as to how many people will be here during the summer. I counted around 10 or so. 8:08 They just discussed the possibility of appointing a chair, who would then resign and Hannah Karns would take over. Wallach raised and hand and said, "Well I'll run for chair!" Chair has been tabled. Sol will continue to run SC into the summer. He doesn't look happy about it. Apparently, Karns will take on some of the Chair duties, but she made it clear she can't do it all. Nice start, Karns. ---- 8:27 After a break, I've come back and they're discussing a Press Office. Some updates: -Would not handle setting up events -Director of Press Office would be paid, 5 hourlies would be hired (don't worry, there is money allocated for it.) -Would deal with website updates, looks like the hourlies would be split up. 8:38 Rep. Carter strikes again. -Nervous about having one voice speaking for all of us -budgetary issues - that money could be rolled into other issues -Most pressing concern - with the constitutional committee, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Executive branch lends itself much better to press - press secretary much more needed for that. Would be much more lukewarm about it if we appointed press secretary and web director. Bam. Tackett - press secretary for executive branch might not be congruent with Council. Gosselin - Discussion shouldn't focus on presidential spokesperson when we don't have one yet. Also, ASM should have the ability to fire these individuals, they should work at the pleasure of council. Chou- I agree, but let's not use the word "pleasure" as it might mean different things...*giggle* She asks to strike that from the minutes. Nope. 8:46 Doesn't want to support Gosselin's amendment so to avoid any division from the "smaller majority." Too bad. Approved. 8:49 Pavlic challenges Carter's assertion that the press office idea is "creating a committee to fix a committee." Carter: With the Council, the point was made that you have the checks and balances, voices could be different. However, the minorty vote within Council could be different. We need to respect that. "I'm still at a loss as to why we can't do this person-to-person" 8:54 Charapata - We only have 2 volunteers and 4 interns and they weren't experienced. Even having 2 people who are experienced would be more than we have now. Maybe the people under the director don't have to be paid. Tackett: I think there would be people who would take on the responsibilities without pay. Believe me - for some budding J-school students, this is a perfect opportunity. But for experienced students? Pfft. Harder nut to crack. 8:58 Wright: Support Director and Ass. Director being paid and not paying other three positions, but we need help determining the newsworthiness of our projects - what are our biggest projects? You mean you don't know? I'd say it went like this from our end: -Grocery Store -Anything with Segregated Fees - Your current implosion How could you spin it? -Reform -Shared Governance (more important than is reported.) -Anything Segregated Fees Related 9:01 Gosselin - this is not a committee. It's a press office with a definite purpose. 9:04 Karns - we need to pass this today. Start making amendments. sidenote: Shout out to Fearless Sifting (who I didn't immediately recognize) and Sam Clegg. Side-sidenote: Gallagher has an Op-ed for tomorrow. Look for it. 9:10 Gosselin has been told to keep his comments germane due to his discussion of stipends. Tackett - amendment - make press office SOLEY repsonsible for media relations. Good. Might have missed that. Wright - whoops. Might preclude ASM members from writing their own press releases or Opinion pieces. Gosselin amends. Close that dead end! Amendment passes. 9:21 This looks to be approaching some resolution. Point of information - Press Office would replace Campus Relations. Motion to call all previous questions. Here we go. Press Office bylaw change is approved - 18-1-2 Alright. They got something done. 9:26 Fung - embarasses himself by asking for a 2 minute bathroom break. fails. Recess for 10 minutes. I don't know. Don't ask.

I encourage you to get the basic facts on the story from Carolyn Potts' article today. However, let me flesh out the details a little bit.

First point was to elect a Chair. That failed. Jeff Wright isn't sure he's staying around for another year and needed sometime to sort out his academic affairs. Because he needed to figure out whether he'll be able to complete another major (History) he asked the Council to postpone their decision. They agreed and moved onto Vice Chair.

For the purposes of saving time, I'll paste what I wrote during that time-frame:

Vote for Chair has been postponed. Wright needs to get his priorities situated and figure out if he can return for the whole year.

Right now, SSFC Chair Alex Gallagher is going head-to-head with Leg. Affairs Chair and Badger Herald writer (no bias on our side though) Hannah Karns for the Vice Chair position. While things seemed to be going pretty steady here, Gallagher dropped a bomb stating that he might not be here the whole year, possibly graduating in December.

Let me say this: I'd rather have a good vice-chair for one semester than a possibly mediocre chair for a whole year.

As for their points:

Hannah: need more communication, more involvement from interns, more implementation and utilization of Vice-Chair role to reach out to other committees

Alex: Complete reform is needed, he's pretty much repeating the press release line. More Presidential, press office stuff.

However, right now Pavlic made the point that just because he's not Vice Chair, doesn't mean he's not going to be involved in leadership. Sounds like a vote for Karns.

Tackett just made a note that Outreach Committee should be abolished. Interesting.

One Rep. (can't see his name from here) has just said Outreach should be abolished and that reform is not a great position for reform.

Wright is speaking...seems hard for him to committ to one candidate. Says both candidates would be good based on different criteria. Can't point to any specific victories from UC, so he supports Alex.

And now for the vote:

Karns defeats Gallagher - 15-5 - Karns is new V.C.

btw: Secretary election fell apart after CJ Grosskopf told them he was going to choose the position by putting their fingers on their nose. Last person to get their finger to their nose takes the post? He didn't really explain.

So after Jennifer Brody was made secretary by ACTUAL Parlipro rules and after taking a brief recess, they got into the nomination of each committee chair.

This is when things get ugly.

Gallagher and Pavlic run for Nominations Board Chair. They both come with the same arguments, basically, but the Dec. graduation prospect scares off everyone and Pavlic wins the chair.

They proceed through a few other committees (such as Diversity, which they postpone because they want to look for more qualified candidates) and eventually arrive at Campus Relations.

At that point Kurt Gosselin motions to postpone Campus Relations Chair appointment indefinately, citing the need to focus on creation of a press office and eventual dissolution of Campus Relations all together.

This prompts some very heated debate where half of the council (let us call it the Gallagher block) argues that this step is needed to ensure the Council moves forward now on reform rather than give any sign of complacency.

The other half of council (Let us call this the Bembenek-Karns block) makes the case for keeping Campus Relations around to ensure a smooth transition to the eventual press office. There are a few who disagree with the notion of a press office altogether, but after some empassioned debate on both sides, the motion came to a vote.

Failure - 9-9-5. Because there is no Chair (and Sol is still presiding) there is no tie breaking vote and so the motion fails.

Goes back to discussion. At this point, someone nominates a woman by the name of Frances Charapata to be chair of Campus Relations. After someone motions to close debate on the subject, another person objects to closing debate after talk of putting in another nomination. The question to close debate is called to a vote: another failure - this time10-10-4.

After this, the floor was once again open to nominations. Gallagher makes a surprise move and nominates me for Campus Relations Chair. I obviously respond by laughing loudly, throwing my pen and frustratingly declining the nomination. Even if I don't graduate, I like the Herald just fine.

They then grill Charapata for a full 10 minutes and approve her.

After a few more posts are approved, they move on to possible campaigns for ASM, including a VOTE 2008 campaign.

When discussion comes about, Gallagher says he has a "a slight announcement" and says he thinks he's done all he can do for the organization and will resign effective immediately. Although, apparently he has to submit this in writing to be official.

Many at the table asked him to take it back and reconsider. Wright offered support and Pavlic offered to give up her Nom. Board post. To no avail. On the way out, I asked Gallagher for comment, but he declined.

Everyone else was packing up and Jeff just sat there. His glasses were thrown off, his copy of the ASM constitution and bylaws with it's "Student Power!" motto displayed in front of him. "I feel like half of our heart has been ripped out."

Despite his uncertainty about this, he has said he'll come on the radio show tomorrow and discuss this at some more length.

If you have any questions or need clarification, post a comment.

Vote for Chair has been postponed. Wright needs to get his priorities situated and figure out if he can return for the whole year.

Right now, SSFC Chair Alex Gallagher is going head-to-head with Leg. Affairs Chair and Badger Herald writer (no bias on our side though) Hannah Karns for the Vice Chair position. While things seemed to be going pretty steady here, Gallagher dropped a bomb stating that he might not be here the whole year, possibly graduating in December.

Let me say this: I'd rather have a good vice-chair for one semester than a possibly mediocre chair for a whole year.

As for their points:

Hannah: need more communication, more involvement from interns, more implementation and utilization of Vice-Chair role to reach out to other committees

Alex: Complete reform is needed, he's pretty much repeating the press release line. More Presidential, press office stuff.

However, right now Pavlic made the point that just because he's not Vice Chair, doesn't mean he's not going to be involved in leadership. Sounds like a vote for Karns.

Tackett just made a note that Outreach Committee should be abolished. Interesting.

One Rep. (can't see his name from here) has just said Outreach should be abolished and that reform is not a great position for reform.

Wright is speaking...seems hard for him to committ to one candidate. Says both candidates would be good based on different criteria. Can't point to any specific victories from UC, so he supports Alex.

And now for the vote:

Karns defeats Gallagher - 15-5 - Karns is new V.C.

btw: Secretary election fell apart after CJ Grosskopf told them he was going to choose the position by putting their fingers on their nose. Last person to remove loses? He didn't really explain.