This is why we have election and campaigning rules: To level the playing field for candidates of various economic and social backgrounds, to insure that voters have easy access to complete and accurate information about candidates and issues, and to maintain a certain level of decency and decorum during the overall campaigning process.

These rules exist to bridle the candidate or campaigner and to protect the voter from fraud, abuse, and misinformation. It only makes sense that rules should be made by the people through representatives independent of those who will be campaigning to win their favor in an election. That is why it baffles me to no end that USG has created a committee to propose changes to these election rules chaired by a freshman assemblyman, who certainly will run for election this spring, and comprised almost entirely of future candidates and campaigners.

When you read about what happened in this last week’s USG meeting, I do not doubt that you too will be baffled to no end. What are you going to do about it?

This committee on election reform was originally created by executive order of the USG President, Daiman Wolak. The chairman position was offered to me because Mr. Wolak felt that I represented a unique bridge between students, USG, and the administration and was the most experienced and qualified at representing the concerns of students outside the system to the administration.

However, in an outcry of venom and hate led by Joel Ebert who shouted out in the meeting, “I do have a personal vendetta against you!” your elected USG President’s decision was overruled by an assembly comprised almost entirely of unelected assemblymen. Ken Thomas, a freshman who was never elected to USG participated in a series of votes which overturned the original committee, and established a committee which limited chairmanship to USG members only.

Mr. Wolak was left with little choice but to appoint Mr. Thomas himself to the chair position, calling seriously into question the appropriateness of Mr. Thomas’ participation in the votes leading up to his own ascension. Certainly, freshman Thomas, who has attended UIC for just over 100 days, has not yet learned about the importance of abstaining from votes that personally benefit yourself. How can we trust his judgement in promoting election policy that will lend itself to be more for students favor, rather than the favor of candidates, such as himself, running in the next election?

In a concession, the USG Assembly decided to respect Wolak’s wishes and allow me to be the Assistant Chair of the committee. Through this position, I plan to do two things: (1) Recruit average students who are not USG connected, and have no political aspirations to represent you, the people, on this committee, and (2) create full transparency of all the actions taken by this committee by publishing everything we do online for you to read, review, and comment on. The website for this will be created soon.

I was contacted for comment by The Chicago Flame for what turned out to be this published article: USG explodes. As usual, the depth of coverage does not go far enough to portray a complete, much less, balanced picture of the events. While I have always been suspicious of bias on articles with Gregory Pratt’s name attached, I do understand the limits of the medium, so I don’t entirely fault them for it in this case. Obviously they tried to get as much out there as they could in the limited space they had. I just think it is too bad most of what they got out centered around giving a voice to the embarrassment to this University that is Joel Ebert, who was disqualified from last year’s election after being found in violation of numerous election rules and University policies, and who really made a fool of himself in that meeting when he interrupted speakers, shouted and cursed, and then left the room in a tantrum crying after being found disorderly.

Instead, I will leave you with my full responses to the questions asked of me by the reporters covering the topic. Hopefully, soon, I will be able to report more on the inner-workings of this committee.

Jake Nash: What is your response to the overruling of the executive order naming you as committee chair of the Election Committee?

What is the point of having a democratically elected president if everything he does is going to be overturned by unelected legislators? How do they expect to be taken seriously or even appear to be legitimate if that is how they are going conduct business?

The reasoning for overturning Damian’s appointment made no sense. As the Speaker pointed out, they were contradicting themselves every step of the way. First, they accused me of already working with the administration too much to express concerns about the election process. Then, they accused me of not being interested in USG matters enough to adequately represent concerns about the election process.

Megan Calcaterra said I cannot represent students because I didn’t collect 50 signatures to get on the legislative assembly. This is a silly argument. Last year I collected 100 signatures to get on the legislative assembly and 600 signatures to be a candidate in the election. It was a near-meaningless process: you can easily walk up to 50 strangers in the Pier Room and get these signatures and never talk to them again. That’s what everyone who gets these signatures does. It means nothing.

What Megan forgets is that while she was busy breaking election rules and campus housing policies during last year’s election, I was out caucusing with hundreds of students listening to their concerns and sharing information with them about how to become informed voters through my knowbeforeyouvote.com website rather than only promote myself or withhold information from them about other candidates. I’ve been a resident assistant for almost 2 years, I’ve been in numerous student clubs and organizations, and I work with student organizations every week to help them get funding through SAFC. No one in their right mind could say that I can’t adequately represent students concerns just because I didn’t get 50 meaningless signatures to join USG as a legislator this year.

They want a freshman who has never experienced a UIC election firsthand and has spent less than one semester at this university to be the main person in charge of gathering the concerns of the entire student body and then persuading the administration to adopt those changes. Does that make any sense? That is like sending a rookie who just joined the team into the championship game. I don’t see how they can justify this as being in the best interest of students.

The truth seemed to come out when Joel disrupted the meeting and emotionally blurted out that he does have a personal vendetta against me and that’s exactly what this is about while the rest of his party members quickly tried to shush him.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to these legislators rejecting someone for a position who has years of experience working with the administration and forging connections with students to choose someone who has no experience or connections and has only been attending UIC for exactly 100 days, and has known about the existence of USG for even less. That just indicates that all they really want is someone in this position who is naive and innocent enough to be easily influenced and controlled, rather than someone who would actually be effective. I hope Mr. Thomas disappoints them.

Jake Nash: Will your level of participation and cooperation, if you decide to be assistant chairperson, be on par with what you initially proposed while being the committee chair? (Will you still “put the screws” to the administration?)

I am always willing to help out where I can. I hope that if there’s anything students can learn from my example and my accomplishments so far, it is that you don’t need a fancy title or position of power to be effective.

Jake Nash: You mentioned that having a legislatively controlled Election Committee “opens the door to, if not the application, the perception of abuse of” the power that is held by that committee. Can you briefly elaborate on this comment?

Everyone in USG who has expressed an interest in being on this committee is either planning on running in the election next year or will be campaigning for the members of their political party who are going to run. As candidates and campaigners, their primary concern should be about how they are going to win the election coming up in a few months, not how to write the rules for the election.

Even the most well-intentioned person cannot avoid these conflicts of interest from effecting their judgement. But that isn’t the worst part. If this committee is chaired and primarily comprised of candidates and campaigners, then I highly doubt the administration is going to take its recommendations very seriously, and that seems to be their biggest hurdle to overcome. I hope they aren’t just cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Gregory Pratt: Joel Ebert has expressed to the Flame that you, Damian, are being fed lines, initiatives, responses, etc. etc., by Zachariah. He has referred to you as the puppet and Zachariah as the puppet master. In part, he cites the notes passed between you and the conversations you guys had at today’s meeting.

Joel Ebert demonstrated tonight that he is a man ruled by his emotions and rampant paranoia rather than calm level-headed reasoning. He said in front of 30 witnesses that he has a personal vendetta against me and then ran out of the room crying. I wouldn’t take what he has to say very seriously.

I find it a bit concerning that Joel would make such wild accusations based only on the fact that Damian and I spoke to each other and he didn’t hear what we were saying.

I handed Damian two notes during the meeting. The first was a suggestion to postpone discussion of the appointment to the appropriate time of the meeting for which it was scheduled. I have that on videotape and can prove that after I handed that note to Damian, he never even said anything. I soon after spoke to the assembly myself to suggest that it would be a good idea to address these concerns at the scheduled time in the agenda.

The second note was just that he should not be too worried about me not being the chairperson of the Election Review Committee. I pulled him aside to encourage him and explain to him that I was still willing to help with the committee and would do my best to assist their efforts in any way I could. Sara Agate was present during this entire conversation and can verify that this is what we talked about.

I think Damian has a valid concern that members of Joel’s political party are trying to hijack the election process to bend it to their advantage, and I think he was hoping that as the chair, I could bring transparency to the committee’s work and let students know what was being done behind closed doors. I simply reassured him that as long as I am invited to be at the committee meetings, I can at least accomplish that, and the rest of the students on this campus would know what this committee is doing.

These members of the Undergraduate Student Government still refuse to resign. They continued in their quest to exact retribution against their formal election rivals and forced the resignation of USG VP Kevin Lee. This injustice cannot stand.

We will continue to collect signatures. We will continue to demand the resignation of all who were involved in the 2009 Election scandals and never paid any consequences for their violations. To read/watch the speech that was delivered to SBG as well as witness their attempts to hide the truth, invite people to speak with them privately rather than publicly, and imply that those who would oppose them are irrational, please read on…

Over the summer, a sign was hung outside the door of the Students for Better Government office which read, “One-thousand one-hundred twenty-five votes were cast, but in the end only five mattered.” This was a reference to the Election Planning Commission’s decision to disqualify the candidacy of several individuals who sit on this very government today. This sign demonstrates that the members and associates of the organization which calls itself Students for Better Government still do not believe that they or their campaign did anything wrong during the 2009 election.

The problem with this statement is that it ignores exactly what the EPC’s decision actually was.

The EPC’s was not voting in the election.
Their decision was not a judgment on the qualifications of the candidates in question.
Their decision was not a judgment of whether or not to count certain votes.
Their decision was a judgment on whether or not election rules and University policies were followed.
Every politician who commits a crime likely has received thousands if not millions of votes. Does this excuse their bad behavior and place them above the law?

If these thousands of votes did not matter or did not count in the 2009 election, the blame does not lie with the ones who fulfilled their duties and passed judgment on these crimes. The blame lies with the individuals who broke the rules in the first place and committed the violations. They are the ones who made those votes not count.

Under mountains of evidence, the members of SBG were convicted for several violations of election rules and university policies. Those are the facts, that is the history, and it cannot be changed.

That is not the whole story, though. Because of simple bureaucratic technicalities, SBG members avoided conviction for the worst crimes their campaign committed. Namely, stealing hundreds of dollars from the University in the form of illegal color photocopies of campaign fliers, and violating numerous Campus Housing rules as well as the privacy of hundreds, if not thousands of residents by disturbing them in their rooms and soliciting their votes between midnight and 1am on Election day.

Eventually, despite our distaste for the consequences, if we are in the wrong, then we are bound by honor to accept the blame for our contributions to wrongdoing. Numerous violations did occur. They were perpetrated directly by individuals in this room, or they were perpetrated indirectly through members of the SBG campaign and students acting as agent on behalf and for the benefit of the members of SBG. SBG’s campaign had a clear distinct message and that was that they were all in the campaign together. They all benefited from each other’s support, but the flip-side of this is that they must all share responsibility for each other’s mistakes. That is what allegiance is. The guilt is equally shared by all.

After the disqualification of nine candidates, ONLY due to the fact that six of those candidates ran in uncontested races, they were given a second chance. Their convictions were not overturned, but their punishments were mitigated. You see, just because some members of SBG were allowed to serve on this Assembly did not mean that they were no longer guilty. Violations still occurred, and these individuals were still guilty of their participation in these violations. That is why these individuals were required to attend mandatory ethics classes in the hope that they would learn from their mistakes and move on.

Has anyone taken responsibility for the mistakes they have made?

Clearly, they have not. These members of the Assembly have abused the mercy shown to them and used it to help their disqualified friends gain positions of power in government. Furthermore, they have used their numbers to back up threats against their former political rivals, pressuring them to resign or face a degrading and stressful impeachment process.

All anyone ever expected of you was to get to work representing the interests of students. Because you have chosen to distract from that mission in order to undermine your political rivals and undermine the decision of the EPC by avoiding the just consequences for your violations, the people have a right to review and to judge your actions and decide for themselves if you should continue to represent them.

In the end, you are representatives of the undergraduate students of UIC, and you are duty bound to adhere to their requests. Your participation in the violations of the 2009 Elections has betrayed the essential trust that is necessary to be a representative of your constituents.

I have in my hand 595 signatures collected in just 5 days all demanding your resignations. The petition reads:

“We, the undersigned, demand the immediate resignation of all USG members who were found guilty of or were involved in the violation of the University and USG Election Policies. These individuals include, but are not limited to: Joel Ebert, Sean Murray, Cecilia Real, Danielle Schubert, Geoff Berkheimer, Heather Kaufman, & Megan Calcaterra

595 signatures collected in only 5 days.
Will you submit to the demands of the students you claim to represent and resign your posts in government?
Will you question the intelligence of THESE 595 undergraduate students for their decision to exercise their democratic right to sign this petition?

We all have made bad choices at one time or another, and often times there are unpleasant consequences that just don’t seem fair. This is not a request that you stop being passionate, good intentioned students. This is not a request that you stop pursuing doing good things at UIC. This is simply a request that you not represent us as voting members of our government. Resign from your positions in government and find another way to be effective leaders on the UIC campus. The opportunities are there waiting for you.

Unfortunately, you lost the privilege to pursuing this one.

That does not mean you cannot restore your honor and integrity by doing the right thing.
The choice is yours. It is not too late to make the right one.
Please, take responsibility for your actions. Do the honorable thing.
Listen to the demands of your constituents.

I would like to being with an apology. In my zeal to create an effective presentation of the events of last year’s USG Election, I made the artistic choice of selecting music for a 90-second video because of the first word of the song which I felt summed up the actions of those featured in the video: “corrupt.” Unfortunately, the length of the video coupled with the musical phrasing of the song caused the video to unintentionally end on the phrase “You will burn in hell for your sins.” In my haste to get the video to press, and my limited knowledge of how to proper sound editing, I uploaded the video to the internet as it was.

The unintentional inclusion of this phrase has somehow led those whom the video is about to feel as if I was making a veiled threat against their safety. That is unequivocally not true. I have no desire or intention, nor will I ever take any actions to harm or even intentionally harass anybody. Period. My goal of the video was simple: Present the facts in such a way that it grabs and holds the attention of my audience and encourages them to take action and get involved in USG.

Because of a lack of attention to detail on my part, I caused my goals to suffer, and made some people feel threatened and unsafe. For my thoughtlessness and insensitivity, I deeply apologize.

==================================================

That being said, the facts are that many individuals on this legislative assembly took part in and benefited from a campaign that violated election and University policies. The undergraduate students of this University have a right to know these facts. A conscious decision was made to not bring these violations before a University Judicial Board because were they to be found guilty in this setting, they would have been barred from serving in any student leadership positions on campus and had their crimes put on their University transcript.

The decision was made by myself and other individuals involved because we did not want to bring harm to students whom we believed would not have engaged in this group had they been aware of the gravity of these violations and their choices. Because this is not a personal attack, principal forces us to consider all those who engaged in these violations equally, therefore this decision was made in order to not “throw the baby out with the bath water” and hurt good people who could change their ways in an effort to prosecutes those who might not fit that category.

Now, the situation has changed.

Certain individuals involved in these election violations have begun to engage in the systematic dismemberment of the democratic systems put in place in USG and even worse, the systematic dismemberment of democratically elected members of this body. This is being done through the use of political strategy, threats, and coercion and does not serve the interests of the undergraduate students of UIC.

The time has come to make a principled stand against these individuals based on their actions, and it grieves me that because this is NOT personal but principle, one cannot pick and choose the “good guys” and the “bad guys” and the application of principal must be made to all those engaged in these crimes who still serve in USG.

I do believe that many of those who engaged in University & election policy violations are good and well intentioned people. I want you to please understand that an attack on illegal behaviors or political positions is NOT a personal one.

However, the principals at stake become lost when instead of confronting actual issues at stake we reduce ourselves to personal attacks and name calling. Therefore, please direct your attention to this article written by Assemblyman Sean Murray and published in the Chicago Flame on October 19th.

In this article, Sean completely forgoes addressing the issues and suggest that the prudent thing to do is to pass the messenger off as nothing short of a mad man. He even says, and I quote: “rather than simply deny these allegations or partake in meaningless dialog … one is best advised not to simply provide counter-argument to the opposing side.”

This is basically a call to not engage in rational principled debate, and Sean quickly moves to crude and outrageous personal attacks. He calls me “voyeuristic” and parallels arguing with me to arguing with a racist. He says my logic is “warped” and “narcissistic” and encourages the reader to ignore the content of my arguments and write me off as a nut.

Then, Sean calls me a “crusading pervert” and twice more calls me a pervert while ending with the unfounded and fear-mongering conclusion that “there are many perverts among us.”

All that I did was present the facts that Assembly Members of USG were involved in a campaign highlighted by fraud, theft, and numerous election and University violations. These are not the ravings of a madman, the evidence of their convictions and disqualifications are right there before you in black and white, written by Dean William Rodriguez. And Sean Murray is right there in the mud, a convicted violator of University & election policies like the rest of them.

Sean’s defense to these facts is not to address them because he knows he is guilty and doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Therefore, he chooses distract from the truth by painting me as a “voyeur” and “racist” who is “warped” and “narcissistic” and a “pervert.”

I ask you this: Is this acceptable behavior for a student leader and Assembly member of the Undergraduate Student Government?

I sincerely trust that most of you in this room are good people with their integrity in tact. I trust that most of you, even those I have made political attacks against and mentioned in this letter, have good intentions and whant to do good things. For example, Jake Johnson and the Save the MAP Grant Committee have made very commendable efforts to build student awareness of Illinois politics and how it affects us as students. I just believe that many of you have made drastic mistakes along the way, and unfortunately not all mistakes are be free of consequence.

I have made my fair share of mistakes. Every time I make a mistake, I am confronted with the choice of continuing in my mistake or changing direction, swallowing my pride, and doing the right thing.

I ask every person in USG to not forget just how good you can be. Don’t forget why you joined USG, and don’t forget that you are charged with the heavy responsibility and privilege of serving the interests of the undergraduate students at UIC.

Is it in students best interests to “silence” our accusers with personal attacks and outrageous name calling?

Is it in students best interests to hastily shred the USG Constitution for the sake of expediency and making your jobs “easier?”

Is it in students best interests to support the impeachment of your hard-working democratically elected Vice President based on the accusations of one who never ran in a democratic election and was voted onto the assembly by a handful of her friends? Don’t forget her own sordid past of being involved in the very election fraud that eliminated the candidates she supported allowing the current Vice President to take office. Is an impeachment that stinks of revenge really what is best for UIC students?

Is it in students best interests for convicted election and University Policy violators, whose legitimacy will always be questionable at best, to serve as unelected representatives on the Undergraduate Student Government?

I leave it to your conscience and your integrity to answer these questions for yourself and to make the right choice.

Who are these individuals and what did they do?

Last year during the USG elections, a group of students known as “Students for Better Government” and their campaign volunteers committed the following crimes (in addition to other election rules violations):

(1) Stole hundreds of dollars from the University by illegally accessing the Residents Hall Association printer and using it to print almost 1000 full color campaign fliers.
Proof: SBG Steals from UIC

(2) Violated Multiple University Housing Policies and the privacy of thousands of residents by knocking on the door nearly every campus housing residents’ rooms between midnight and 1am to solicit votes for their candidates.

(3) Set up “fake” voting booths designed to look like official voting booths and then engaged in illegal electioneering practices by telling those who walked by how to vote while they were voting (this is also against federal and state laws).

(4) Lied to University officials in order to stage an event in the Quad that they said was to “promote general election awareness” but turned out be to distribute ONLY their campaign materials, and solicit votes illegally through numerous voting booths while engaging in bribery to get students to vote for them.

The list goes on, but you get the picture. Who are these people? You may be shocked to hear it, but they all found a loophole and found a way to get onto your student government, and they now control the majority:

Joel Ebert, disqualified for 2 violations of the Student Disciplinary Policy and 1 violation of election rules.	Sean Murray, disqualified for 2 violations of the Student Disciplinary Policy and 1 violation of election rules.
Sara Agate, disqualified for 1 violation of the Student Disciplinary Policy	Cecilia Real, disqualified for 1 violation of the Student Disciplinary Policy
Danielle Schubert, disqualified for 1 violation of the Student Disciplinary Policy	Heather Kaufman & Geoff Berkheimer, disqualified for 2 violations of the Student Disciplinary Policy

Megan Calcaterra, SBG Campaigner – election fraud (Case #9, Rule #4, Level 1)

I know what you’re thinking. How are they even allowed to be on USG after what they did? Well, there was a loophole in the system, one that even the UIC administration is not happy with. The complaints filed against them were not filed through the University Judicial process because the understanding was that by filing them through the Election Review Board, they would eventually reach a Judicial Hearing. This turned out to be wrong. Being found guilty there would have gone on their permanent college records and barred them from ever being allowed to serve in USG. They got lucky and slid through a loophole in the system.

Whom are they attacking and on what grounds?

Kevin Lee, is the democratically elected Vice President of USG. Kevin is a model UIC pre-pharmacy movement science student here at UIC. He climbed his way onto the Dean’s List multiple times through outstanding academic achievement. He cemented his status as a student leader by earning the coveted Chancellor’s Student Leadership Award. He founded the 2008-09 Leadership Fraternity of the Year, Beta Kappa Zeta. He volunteers tirelessly for the Chicago Park District, at Condell Hospital, and as an English Language Tutor to immigrants.

In his short time as USG Vice President, he has excelled in his duties. His accomplishments include ensuring that the office is staffed five days a week during regular business hours for the first time in USG history and managing the creation and implementation of the modern new USG website, uicusg.org after a 1 year outage of the USG website. Kevin Lee is beyond reproach.

Yet, SBG members and associates have threatened to impeach Kevin Lee if he does not resign! This is ludicrous. Even Dean Malcolm Smith, the advisor to USG, applauds the work Kevin has been doing in USG, but they do not seek much listen to their advisor’s advice. SBG and associates will stop at nothing to take full control of your student government and take revenge on those who were elected after their disqualification.

A major part of their complaint against Kevin is that he has not attended USG meetings regularly this semester. Well, that is true – but only because they made sure to purposely and knowingly schedule the meetings during when both Kevin Lee & Damian Wolak, the USG President have class! Talk about sneaky! This should have never happened, but at the time, they already controlled the assembly and no one would stop them.

How can you stop this from happening?

COLLECT PETITION SIGNATURES!

Bring signatures from your fellow undergraduate students on these two petitions:
1. Demand Resignation of Election Cheats

COME TO A MEETING AND VOICE YOUR SUPPORT FOR KEVIN LEE!

Tonight, 10/22 @ 5pm – USG Meeting in SCE, Ft Dearborn Room.
- Impeachment charges may be brought against Kevin Lee, or he may be forced to resign.

Thursday, 10/29 @ 5pm – USG Meeting in SCE, Ft. Dearborn Room.
- Impeachment charges or resignation request will be voted on by the assembly.

Also, EMAIL your Student Affairs Staff and USG Representatives and tell them how you feel about what is being done to Kevin Lee.

CLICK HERE TO EMAIL EVERYONE

Barbara Henley, Ph.D.
Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
bhenley@uic.edu

Linda Deanna, Ph.D.
Associate Vice Chancellor/Dean of Students
ldeanna@uic.edu

J. Malcolm Smith
Assistant Dean of Students
Advisor to USG – does not get a vote
jmalcolm@uic.edu

Damian Wolak
President of USG
usgpresident@gmail.com

Kevin lee
Vice President of USG
usgvicepresident@gmail.com

Roshina Khan
Speaker of the Assembly
usgspeaker@gmail.com

Joel Ebert – disqualified Student Trustee Candidate, April 2009
USG Assembly Member
Co-Founder of SBG
Former Editor for The Chicago Flame
jebert3@uic.edu

Sean Murray – disqualified USG Vice President Candidate, April 2009
USG Assembly Member
President of SBG
Current writer for The Chicago Flame
smurra3@uic.edu

Sara Agate – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
sagate2@uic.edu

Bernadette Casaclang – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
bcasac2@uic.edu

Heather Kaufman – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
Former contributor to The Chicago Flame
hkaufm2@uic.edu

Cecilia Real – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
creal2@uic.edu

Danielle Schubert – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
dschub2@uic.edu

Geoff Berkheimer – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
Former contributor to The Chicago Flame
gberkh2@uic.edu

Megan Calcaterra – caught illegally campaigning for SBG, April 2009
USG Assembly Member
Affiliate of SBG
mcalca2@uic.edu

Jake ‘Ohsofresh’ Johnson – participated in the SBG campaign, April 2009
USG Assembly Member
jjohns82@uic.edu

Saad Jamil – USG Vice Presidential Candidate, April 2009
USG Assembly Member
sjamil2@uic.edu

Vrushank Shah – returning member from 2008-09
USG Assembly Member
vshahs2@uic.edu

Areazue Hosseini – returning member from 2008-09
USG Assembly Member
ahosse4@uic.edu

Alex Fernandez – returning member from 2008-09
USG Assembly Member
aferna7@uic.edu

Johnathan Hoekstra – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
jhoeks5@uic.edu

Monika Karczmarczyk – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
mkarcz2@uic.edu

Agnieszka Kirpa – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
akirpa2@uic.edu

Steve Mower – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
smower2@uic.edu

Alex Rogers – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
aroger4@uic.edu

Davor Trnovljakovic – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
dtrnov2@uic.edu

Alma Zamudio – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
azamud2@uic.edu

Now, as far as the MAP Grant is concerned. Is it really in Jeopardy? I believe that, no, it is not actually in jeopardy. No matter what we do, the MAP Grant will be restored by this spring, so please don’t fret too much.

That does not mean that all your efforts to ‘Restore the MAP Grant’ are going to waste. First let me explain why the MAP Grant was cut:

(1) Illinois has a $32.9 billion budget, yet we have an estimated $3-$7 billion deficit. Some economists (Keynesian School) believe this is good because spending that extra money will help the economy – they propose we expand the deficit. Some economists (Austrian/Chicago School), and most citizens are concerned about the long term impact of such deficit spending, and they want to close the gap.

(2) Most politicians want to appease the “shrink the deficit crowd” so they are fighting over how to do so. The conservatives are posturing themselves as “cut wasteful spending out of the budget” side of the debate. They have a point. We don’t have spending controls on our state budget and we don’t really have mechanisms to review if our money is being used properly (that goes for University spending as well, which has caused tuition rates to skyrocket). However, most legislators are unwilling to cut pet projects out of the budget that benefit their home districts or constituencies.

(3) On the liberal side of the debate, the call has been to raise taxes. However, raising taxes is pretty unpopular, and most legislators don’t want to face a difficult reelection battle if they vote in favor of raising taxes. So, there has been a stalemate in the IL Congress.

(4) Over the summer, a budget was passed which did NOT include tax increases. It did not close the deficit by enough, and it cut social spending in areas that Gov. Quinn found unacceptable. He vetoed the bill and said he would not sign a bill that did not include tax increases.

(5) The legislature did not have a good enough “excuse” to increase taxes – so this is where your MAP Grant came into play: They decided to cut it by 50% ($200 million) and use this as bait to get the people to demand it back and be willing to accept “whatever means necessary” was used to do so. Everyone knows that if they cut the MAP Grant for good they would be in political jeopardy, so no one actually truly intended to cut the MAP Grant for good. It is just a game they’re playing.

(6) That is why the MAP Grant was only reduced in the Spring 2010 semester to zero, and not cut at all in the Fall. This way no one gets hurt, but now we have a “ticking time bomb” that will force people to act quickly to organize and mobilize to bring back the MAP Grant.

(7) The political trick is that now instead of the debate being “wasteful spending vs. tax increases” they have changed the debate to “MAP Grant vs. tax increases” – and since so many people love the MAP Grant so much, now they have an energized group of people who will lobby for the Governor’s proposed tax increases and now everyone has an excuse to raise taxes and won’t suffer political harm for it. They can say, “We were just doing what the people wanted!”

(8) Here’s my challenge to you: Lobby for the MAP Grant to come back, but don’t lose sight of the REAL issues at stake here. Illinois needs to adopt budget controls so that our spending doesn’t get out of control. Illinois needs to review the effectiveness of their spending and cut major sections of pork out of the budget. Tax increases may or may not be necessary, but on their own they are no solution to anything (and in my opinion enable and reward wasteful spending rather than help curb it, so are more of a bad thing at this point).

FINAL POINT: It is pointless to lobby to bring back the MAP Grant if that’s where the story ends. If we don’t fix the problems that led to our politicians using the MAP Grant against us, then in a few years, they’re just going to pull the same old tricks on us, and take something out of the budget we are unwilling to part with as a means of getting us to line up behind what THEY think is best state of Illinois rather than what the PEOPLE think is best.

Currently constituencies provide representation for every academic discipline, various segments of campus housing, commuter students, student athletes, and Greek organizations. Suggested future changes are to include representation for veterans, and to expand efforts to provide representation for more underrepresented populations on campus. Think of it like having 2 Senators from every state in the US Senate. Some states (like diversity groups) may be smaller than others, but this way every one gets a voice.

Megan Calcaterra wants to undo all this? She doesn’t want your student government to be representative of of this diverse campus? Why do you suppose that is?

This is yet another attempt to complete the efforts began last spring by Students for Better Government (SBG) to take complete control of your student government. Many of you may recall the confusion in last year’s elections where SBG representatives compelled students to vote in the USG election and handed them a list, or “voting guide” of only SBG members on it. This is a classic Communist tactic to stuff ballot boxes with votes for one candidate or slate of candidates.

Guess who was caught on tape doing this very thing! Megan Calcaterra! This was just one piece in a large puzzle that eventually led to the disqualification of the entire SBG slate from the USG election.

Now, Calceterra wants to continue her efforts to get her friends and cronies into positions of power, but one things stands in her way: Constituencies. You see, constituencies make it extremely difficult for someone to pack an assembly with all their friends and cronies because constituencies place limitations on representation.

Imagine if the US Senate wasn’t limited to 2 Senators per state and all 100 Senators could conceivably be elected from one state, representing one limited group of people’s interests. Would that be fair and equal representation of this country? This is exactly what removing constituencies will accomplish, and it is perfectly in line with Calcaterra’s approach to democracy in the past: Get your friends elected at all cost, and don’t give the people diversity of choice.

Stop the cheats. Stop the elites. Be informed. Be involved. Go to USG Meetings.

Next USG Meeting: Thursday, Oct 1, 5pm in Burnham Hall 308 – Facebook Event

Contact your USG representatives and tell them how you feel by clicking RIGHT HERE!

Damian Wolak
President of USG
usgpresident@gmail.com

Kevin lee
Vice President of USG
usgvicepresident@gmail.com

Roshina Khan
Speaker of the Assembly
usgspeaker@gmail.com

Joel Ebert – disqualified Student Trustee Candidate, April 2009
USG Assembly Member
Co-Founder of SBG
Former Editor for The Chicago Flame
jebert3@uic.edu

Sean Murray – disqualified USG Vice President Candidate, April 2009
USG Assembly Member
President of SBG
Current writer for The Chicago Flame
smurra3@uic.edu

Sara Agate – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
sagate2@uic.edu

Bernadette Casaclang – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
bcasac2@uic.edu

Heather Kaufman – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
Former contributor to The Chicago Flame
hkaufm2@uic.edu

Cecilia Real – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
creal2@uic.edu

Danielle Schubert – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
dschub2@uic.edu

Geoff Berkheimer – disqualified Assembly Candidate; reinstated May 2009
USG Assembly Member
Member of SBG
Former contributor to The Chicago Flame
gberkh2@uic.edu

Megan Calcaterra – caught illegally campaigning for SBG, April 2009
USG Assembly Member
Affiliate of SBG
mcalca2@uic.edu

Jake ‘Ohsofresh’ Johnson – participated in the SBG campaign, April 2009
USG Assembly Member
jjohns82@uic.edu

Saad Jamil – USG Vice Presidential Candidate, April 2009
USG Assembly Member
sjamil2@uic.edu

Vrushank Shah – returning member from 2008-09
USG Assembly Member
vshahs2@uic.edu

Areazue Hosseini – returning member from 2008-09
USG Assembly Member
ahosse4@uic.edu

Alex Fernandez – returning member from 2008-09
USG Assembly Member
aferna7@uic.edu

Johnathan Hoekstra – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
jhoeks5@uic.edu

Monika Karczmarczyk – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
mkarcz2@uic.edu

Agnieszka Kirpa – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
akirpa2@uic.edu

Steve Mower – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
smower2@uic.edu

Alex Rogers – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
aroger4@uic.edu

Davor Trnovljakovic – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
dtrnov2@uic.edu

Alma Zamudio – new to USG
USG Assembly Member
azamud2@uic.edu