University of Michigan student misses chance to speak at regents meeting, prompting outcries
A University of Michigan School of Social Work graduate student was prohibited from speaking at the Board of Regents meeting Thursday afternoon because she was outside the meeting room when her name was called for public comments.
Other students erupted in chants of support for her as she argued for an opportunity to speak.
Martha Valadez, a University of Michigan School of Social Work student and co-founder of the Social Work Alliance for Immigrant Rights, addresses the Ann Arbor City Council in this file photo from earlier this year.
"This is my last opportunity to speak at the University of Michigan,” Valadez said, pleading with Churchill to speak. She also appealed to U-M President Mary Sue Coleman, but Coleman didn't respond.
Churchill refused as students chanted "Shame on you. Shame on you."
Valadez told Churchill she was outside of the room because she was deciding whether to speak about a viral video Coleman referenced at the beginning of the meeting. Valadez said the video perpetuates racial stereotypes. She originally intended to speak about tuition equality for undocumented students.
Public speakers get five minutes for public comment. U-M allows exactly 10 public speakers to comment each meeting, per legal requirements. Commenters must sign up in advance.
Valadez was the first person called to the podium during the public comment section at the end of the meeting.
While Valadez argued with Churchill about her opportunity to speak, another scheduled speaker lost her chance to speak.
"This is your last chance," Churchill told the scheduled speaker. When that speaker failed to interject, Churchill moved onto the next speaker.
Before she did, Valadez asked another time to speak and a crowd of students chanted "let them speak, let them speak, let them speak," but were refused.
After the meeting officially ended, Valadez gave her speech. Roughly half the administrators and regents present stayed to watch, but others, including Coleman and Churchill, left.
"I felt like I was invisible," Valadez said in an interview after the regents meeting. She said mid-meeting she left the room to go to the bathroom and was approached by a fellow student about the viral video. The two discussed how they thought he video was offensive, and Valadez was in the process of deciding whether or not to address it during her comments before the regents when she missed Churchill calling her name.
Coleman moved quickly through the consent agenda Thursday, saying she had to accommodate a regent who needed to leave early.
"There's protocol, I understand that," Valadez said, "but I was furious."
"It's the procedure," explained U-M spokesman Rick Fitzgerald, adding that Valadez knew her name was first on the public comments list. "It's the process."
Students at the meeting expressed outrage over the exchange.
"It was disheartening," said U-M senior Matthew Griffith. "I understand the rules, but it could have been done in a much more decent way."
Added U-M senior Eman Abdelhadi:
"(Churchill) didn't validate the concern. She could have easily said I'm sorry these are the rules ... but she literally acted like (Valadez) hadn't spoken," she said.
"The whole exchange showed that public comments only exist because they are legally required to have them," she said, adding that during other comment sessions "it was just so clear that people weren't listening."
U-M junior Ian Matchett agreed.
"A student basically pleading for her right to speak to the people who are supposed to be representing her —and then being denied— is disturbing," he said.
Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at kelliewoodhouse@annarbor.com or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.
Comments
Frances Janis
Sun, Apr 22, 2012 : 2:52 p.m.
I am the mom with the latex allergic son who keeps consistently having latex in his room at U of M. I spoke before Martha as I was the last speaker. I am glad that most stated to listen as did we as that is the respectful thing to do. While I support their cause, John has a cause too, one that can KILL him and yet for some in the rom and the media, he was invisible also. I am hoping more people will go to our petition and help us get media attention as U of M is still saying maybe, possibly, sorry.. http://www.change.org/petitions/ceo-university-of-michigan-hospital-keep-latex-out-of-my-son-and-all-latex-allergic-patients-rooms
UEBersih
Sun, Apr 22, 2012 : 12:09 a.m.
I was also at this meeting. I do not understand why this does not state that this woman spoke at the end of the meetings and that most people stayed to hear her. Is it possible that the reporter chooses not to for some reason? I know many people who have been wronged by the university's policies, but a news reporter should report the whole truth.
Kellie Woodhouse
Sun, Apr 22, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.
Thanks for reading. This is in the article. I've copied and pasted the passage for you here: After the meeting officially ended, Valadez gave her speech. Roughly half the administrators and regents present stayed to watch, but others, including Coleman and Churchill, left.
Leslie
Sat, Apr 21, 2012 : 4:50 p.m.
I was at that meeting with a friend who was also speaking - the last speaker. She had her handicapped son with her. Her son has a tracheotomy and needs to be suctioned every half hour or so. We were informed when she signed in that if she was not in the room and ready to speak when her name was called, she would forfeit her time. She respected this rule, and her husband was there to care for her son, having to take him out of the room several times during the meeting. It IS unfortunate that Ms. Valdez wasn't in the room when her name was called, but I agree with others that this is a hard life lesson. What no one HAS mentioned is that a good number of the board stayed behind and listened to her say her piece once the meeting had been adjourned. We respectfully stayed and listened as well. When the students passed a message to not walk out after their last speaker, I thought it might be out of respect for those who followed who had nothing to do with their cause. I have to say I was disappointed that it was only because of Ms. Valdez's hope to speak at the end of the meeting. If the students had been the last speakers, I feel walking out would have been appropriate. But walking out would have compromised the next speaker's time. While I support the cause that Ms. Valdez and her group are fighting for, they need to respect the fact that their actions can impact other meeting participants who have just as important (and in our case, life-threatening) causes they are fighting for. Ms.Valdez will encounter many more hard life lessons. The good news is that she WAS heard by a good portion of the board.
Tanzor
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.
Ms Valadez, do you understand to concept of procedures. You're like a little girl throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your way. I think you're going to have a tough time in the real world work place. Grow up already!
Robert Granville
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.
Judging by the comments, too many people derive pleasure from being cold and adversarial. Its clear that, regardless of the rules, Churchill couldn't care less about public input. That's the important piece to glean from the article... if all you can think afterr reading this is "stop whining and feeling entitled" I encourage you to hug someone today... you're angry and you need it.
nuseph
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.
Funny how commenters are calling this student self-entitled, yet the regent who needed to leave early gets off scot-free.
David Cahill
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:16 p.m.
This bizarre refusal to let someone speak, even though she had signed up, is all to typical of the "Sovereign Nation of the U of M".
Ron Granger
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:14 p.m.
Considering how the multi-hundred million dollar stadium expansion was rail-roaded through, I don't think an hour for public comment is nearly enough. The regents have no accountability to anyone. Their past actions - and especially in-action in the case of the child porn incident - show they need more public input and oversight.
JSA
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
Ms. Valdez knew the conditions under which she would be allowed to address the regents. She didn't adhere to them. Too bad, so sad. She needs to stop whining and accept the fact that her failure to speak is a result of her own actions.
nuseph
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:20 p.m.
Or the action of the regent who had to leave early?
Jimmy McNulty
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 11:50 a.m.
She learned a good life lesson: Be on time.
foobar417
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:52 p.m.
I hope it's not an accurate quote. It has five errors in it.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:28 p.m.
I believe that is accurate, and I teach it today in youth sports.
just a voice
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:24 p.m.
in the words of Bo - 'of your early your on time, if your on time your late' (this may not be an exact quote)
deputydwag
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 11:31 a.m.
I hope that these graduates understand that in the real world they will see missed opportunities all the time. Don't get hung up on that as there is another one around the corner. Chanting will not get you anywhere in the business world. Results do. Hope U of M teaches that. At least 10 people as required by law get to comment, I remember when Michigan law didn't require any accommodation to comment at a government meeting. Yes, a government body has a meeting, to conduct business. U of M is a business that needs to deal with the operational side of the educational business it is in. If you are lucky enough to get on the agenda, be prepared. Be prepared if you are fortunate enough to get a job in this day and age. Otherwise the next one in line will be.
nuseph
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:21 p.m.
If you're lucky enough to be elected a regent, don't schedule conflicting appointments so that you have to leave early and screw over the public.
trespass
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : noon
10 people are not required by law, rather the rules written by the Regents limit the speakers to 10 and the law may allow them to do so. You want to teach the student a lesson too, when you have the power to do something, like prevent her from speaking, you should do it so that you show the audience you have more power than they do. Regents are elected officials, show them that you have the power at their campaign stops and at the ballot box. Pay attention to the Regents election and put someone in who respects the role of all members of the University community.
Stuart Brown
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 8:11 a.m.
The rules were clearly designed to make it as hard as possible for the public to participate in the decision making process. The ramifications of the lack of public input in the decision making process is an institution that is increasingly out of touch with its stake holders and the public at large whom it in theory serves.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 11:51 a.m.
I'm no fan of the board of regents in general but 10 people getting 5 minutes each is close to an hour with the "shift change" tossed in. There should be some sort of limit on how much time they need to sit and listen. There are other ways for any of us to contact our politicians.
Superior Twp voter
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 3:54 a.m.
Waaaa! So sad, too bad. She was 'prolly jabbering on her cell/text anyway...
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:11 a.m.
"U-M junior Ian Matchett agreed. 'A student basically pleading for her right to speak to the people who are supposed to be representing her —and then being denied— is disturbing,' he said" She wasn't denied her right to speak. She forfeited her right to speak when she left the meeting. I'm really sick of the arrogant entitlement mentality of students these days.
nuseph
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.
Maybe if people didn't make the same uninformed point four times in the same article. I actually don't doubt the regent had a legitimate reason for having to early--just as the student had a legitimate reason for not hearing her name called. But that doesn't fit into your narrative, so let's call the student self-entitled while forgetting the regent. Awesome logic.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.
I mean, having posted this same response four times in the same article.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 4:52 p.m.
nuseph, you obviously know the reason the regent had to leave early, because you have clearly determined whether it was an acceptable reason. Can you share it with the rest of us?
nuseph
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:23 p.m.
What about the arrogant entitlement of the regent who decided to leave early?
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:05 a.m.
If you're going to speak at a meeting, be prepared with what you want to say, and be ready. Agendas are not written in stone. Some times things are skipped because certain people aren't present, or an item is withdrawn by the person who asked for it to be put on the agenda, time constraints, etc. Some times agendas are rearranged. This student has hopefully learned a lesson from this that will help her throughout her life. Be prepared and follow protocol. It won't be the last time you find yourself in this situation, and sometimes the rules can't be changed no matter how much you complain.
antikvetch
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:51 a.m.
Oh, the inhumanity...
JRW
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:45 a.m.
"She also appealed to U-M President Mary Sue Coleman, but Coleman didn't respond." That says it all. One less public commenter to deal with. Very unfortunate.
Michael Christie
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:16 a.m.
sounds like a good lesson on life to me.
trespass
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.
I don't think the story made it clear but when the student left for the bathroom there was still quite a bit on the agenda before the public comment period but the regents cut the reading of the consent agenda short because Regent Maynard had to leave early. Thus, Ms. Valdez thought she had time to go to the bathroom before it was her turn. Under the circumstances, the Regents should have been more generous but they view input from the public as a waste of their time. Kellie, the other student did not lose her turn. Even though Ms. Churchill said she would lose her turn, if you take note of the names, she got up and spoke next anyway and Ms. Churchill did not stop her.
trespass
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 11:50 a.m.
@Angry- I would agree except that the Regents suddenly changed their normal procedure while she was out of the room by skipping over the rest of the agenda.
Angry Moderate
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:03 a.m.
So she left the room to go to the bathroom and chat with a friend about YouTube videos during the meeting while other people were speaking, and then waltzed in 5 minutes late complaining that other people didn't want to listen to her. How rude and self-entitled, if you're going to speak at a meeting, you sit patiently and listen to the other speakers. You don't leave the room and only come in when it's your turn to talk.
clark
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 11:24 p.m.
Sounds like both the students and regents could show a bit more courtesy to each other. Having said that, I would generally expect speakers scheduled in advance to prepare their remarks in advance and be ready to go when called. And if Valadez decided on the spur of the moment not to give her original prepared speech in order to talk about a viral video, the original topic must not have been very important.
Ron Granger
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 10:48 p.m.
It is unfortunate that only 10 people get to speak at the meeting. That is the real issue. It allows people to "lock out" the limited public comment opportunity. So if you sign up for one of those limited slots and aren't ready, tough beans. Btw, the "gag" in the video looked like something middleschoolers would do, and does not merit wasting anymore time.
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 11:43 a.m.
The law does not require meetings to go on all night if there are that many people wanting to speak. Nothing wrong with limiting speakers to a reasonable number. A whole hour for public speakers (10 speakers * 5 minutes plus up/down time) is fine.
trespass
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:17 a.m.
It is not clear whether limiting the number of speakers is legal under the Open Meetings Act because it says that speakers must be allowed to speak but it also says that the public body can make up rules for speakers. Thus, the UM believes that means that they can limit the number. They are the only local public body that I am aware of that has such a limit. During the debate over funding the Humane Society there were probably 40 speakers a night at the County Board of Commissioners' meeting.
Mike
Thu, Apr 19, 2012 : 10:12 p.m.
She couldn't make that decision while waiting inside the meeting area? We're raising a generation of whiners and complainers who expect everything to go their way and to be catered to. She was given the right to speak and chose (was not forced) to leave the meeting. What if everyone who was to speak did the same thing? I support the regents. She can always write an editorial or start a blog..............
Unusual Suspect
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 1:07 a.m.
Agendas change. Deal.
trespass
Fri, Apr 20, 2012 : 12:14 a.m.
If you read my comment below, the Regents suddenly cut the meeting agenda short, which took the student by surprise.