NEWS
Union plan dies in student vote
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Andriy Pazuniak:
- SSFC wittles Wunk Sheek budget (October 21, 2005)
- Cieslewicz, Judge come out on top in spring election (April 9, 2007)
- Music industry serves campus (March 22, 2007)
- UW to RIAA: No way (March 21, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Local 171, students rally for higher worker wages (March 24, 2006)
- Students vote 'no' on union (April 8, 2005)
- Canceled ASM referendums back on ballot this fall (September 4, 2006)
- Wage increase could violate policy (March 23, 2006)
- Bazzell: UW may not honor Living Wage vote (October 25, 2006)
Share This:
by Andriy Pazuniak
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Student fees will not be raised to fund renovations to the Wisconsin Unions, but many university employees stand to receive higher wages as a result of Tuesday's student-government election outcome.
In an Associated Students of Madison referendum election that witnessed a record level of participation — a reported 22.4 percent — students voted in favor of the Living Wage referendum but against the Wisconsin Union Facilities Improvement Plan.
If it had passed, the Wisconsin Union referendum would have raised student fees by a maximum of $96 per student, per semester for up to 30 years to partially fund a project to renovate Memorial Union and build a new South Campus Union. In the closer of the two referendum votes, the Wisconsin Union referendum was defeated by 695 votes — killing the plan with 54 percent of the student vote.
Prior to the election, the referendum was often criticized for mandating an increase to student-segregated fees.
Eric Varney, chair of ASM, was one of the most vocal opponents to the referendum, saying the cost of the renovation project would create an undue burden on students.
Tuesday, Varney said he was pleased to see the student body vote down the referendum.
"I think students were smart about what they did," Varney said. "Hopefully, they can find other alternatives for funding [the Union renovations]."
But according to Shayna Hetzel, vice president of external relations for the Wisconsin Union Directorate, without the funding from student-segregated fees, the Union renovation project would not be able to move forward as planned; WUD sponsored the referendum.
"At this point, the plan in its current form will never happen," Hetzel said. "We will do what we can to salvage Memorial Union, but we will not have the historical renovation we hoped for."
Hetzel added that the necessary upgrades to bring Memorial Union's plumbing, fire and safety systems up to code will now have to be done more "piecemeal" and in a "patchwork" fashion.
Furthermore, Hetzel also said the future of Union South is not promising.
"Nothing will be done to Union South … we don't have the funding," Hetzel said, noting that there were "no guarantees" that Union South would remain a student Union. "It's unclear what will happen with that site."
The Student Labor Action Coalition-sponsored Living Wage referendum passed by 1,108 votes and aims to raise the wages of many university workers; of the more than 8,500 students who voted, 62 percent approved the Living Wage referendum.
Explicitly, the referendum will no longer allow ASM to allocate student fees to "auxiliary budgets" — which include the Wisconsin Unions, University Health Services and UW recreational sports — that do not pay workers a wage equal to or greater than 110 percent of the federal poverty line. Those "auxiliary budgets" are often dependent on student-segregated fees to operate, receiving more than $18 million in student-segregated fees this past year.
SLAC members said they were "ecstatic" with the outcome of the election.
"Students are standing with workers on this campus, fighting poverty wages," SLAC representative Joel Feingold said. "[UW] administrators are good people, and I'm sure they will follow the democratic will of the students."
Prior to the election, many questions were raised over what the ultimate outcome of the Living Wage referendum would be.
While SLAC members contended the referendum would raise the wages of many university employees, Vice Chancellor Darrell Bazzell suggested it would only eliminate student-government voice from the segregated fee allocation process for auxiliary budgets.
In previous interviews with The Badger Herald, Bazzell stated that ASM does not have the right to directly allocate student fees for auxiliary budgets, but rather can only make recommendations to the chancellor.
Tuesday, after the release of the election results, Bazzell said the university would do nothing but continue to work with ASM and submit budgets for their input.
"We will do what we always have done," Bazzell said. "We will share our budgets with all our students … we will continue to submit budgets as we always have."
People disagreeing with the outcome of the election will have five days to submit complaints to the Student Judiciary before the body certifies the results.
Though no formal complaints have been submitted yet, Tim Leonard, chair of the Student Election Commission, said the commission is investigating allegations of possible voter harassment.
Leonard said the commission received some complaints of students being "intimidated" while voting for the referendums by people posing as "booth attendants" at Gordon Commons.
One complaint mentioned SLAC member Ashok Kumar, who won a seat on the Dane County Board last night, by name, accusing him, along with others, of "forc[ing] their opinions on students as they were voting."
Online lections for Student Council seats will reopen today at 8 a.m. Elections for both the Student Council and the referendums were postponed last week after a "technical error" was found in the online voting system. However, the error has since been corrected, Leonard said.
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 6:58am):
I voted "no" for WUFIP.
Had the proposal been limited to renovations to MU, particularly those making it safer and more accessible, I would have voted "yes". What would that have been? About $30/semester?
Plan B anyone?
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 9:05am):
There's only so much money for wages - I guess it will have to go to fewer people.
Some get more, others get nothing - NICE.
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 9:12am):
It would have been approx. $49 a semester. Memorial cost more than doing a new south union.
There will NOT be another Union Referendum. This was the sutdents ONLY chance to save the Union.
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 9:26am):
I find it very funny that last week Ashok Kumar and Joel Fiengold both were complaining about how ASM was in the pocket of the administration, and that we were fixing the election. Now that they have been accused of harassing people during voting, and defacing WUFIP's chalkings they claim it's just sour grapes. Can they smell their on B.S.?
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 9:30am):
Actually, the renovation of Memorial is the more expensive portion of the project, so it probably would have been closer to 50 dollars a semester
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 10:08am):
I'm glad to see the WUFIP referendum did not pass. Did Union officials and leaders really think that it was appropriate, at this point in time, to ask for such a hefty tuition/fees increase?
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 10:32am):
wooohooo!! despite constant editorial attacks against the progressive student movement. the left wins again!
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 10:55am):
I'd like to sit in on the focus group where the WUFIP folks try to figure out how the $200,000 they supposedly dropped on this vote led to their asses being handed to them.
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 11:08am):
I like how SLAC probably inadvertantly screwed over workers and raised seg fees while claiming to champion the opposite Whether they believe it or not, opposing re-vitalizing Union South means that eventually, Union South is going to go away in favor of a private building, which means hundreds of state jobs lost. I doubt any private developer is going to pay their workers 10 dollars an hour
And the living wage is probably going to force the Union to cut jobs or raise segregated fee in order to pay some workers more. Way to look at the long term consequences SLAC!
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 11:14am):
Actually, it would have been closer to $200, per student, per year. What's so bad about the Unions right now?
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 11:43am):
I think it is sad that the union ref didn't pass. Last year we worked hard to get it squashed in vote and then when it lost had the opportunity to completely revamp it, based on student input...
the union took the high and inneffective marketing route and didn't respond aggresivly to slac's slander...so the students voted uninformed.
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 11:53am):
"$49 a semester"
What a terribly small marginal increase in cost for something that would have provided decades of future benefits. How short sighted. What a tragedy.
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 12:13pm):
The students did not vote uninformed. The students do not want a tuition increase of that amount given that next year is a budget year and the legislature does not look favorably upon UW at this point. I personally don't have 200 extra dollars a year to throw at the Union.
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 12:22pm):
"Actually, it would have been closer to $200, per student, per year. What's so bad about the Unions right now?"
I think the 50/ per semester dollar figure cited was just the renovations Memorial alone, with no Union South. Seriously though, i'd take a walk through the buildings if you don't think anything is wrong with them. I opposed the referendum for other reason, but I agree that Memorial is probably going to be a shithole in the next 5-10 years if they don't do anything about it.
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 12:29pm):
"There will NOT be another Union Referendum. This was the sutdents ONLY chance to save the Union."
Yeah, did you hear? They're demolishing both Unions tomorrow! OH SHIT!!
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 12:42pm):
I'd seriously bet money (though not 200/semester) that Union South is toast. Once this: http://badgerherald.com/news/2006/04/04/big_money_big_resea.php
goes up, I guarantee Union South won't survive very long. Start the death watch now
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 4:59pm):
So I'll now get $10.23 an hour for swiping student id at the Nat while studying O Chem? Sweet...how much more do I have to pay for tuition though? Why didn't SLAC explain to us properly that the living wage they proposed is actually for a family of 4? I sure don't have a wife and kids. I'm sure most students on this campus don't either. Can someone explain how this work? Is this really what we want on this campus?
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 6:12pm):
Just an FYI on the Institute of Discovery and Union South. The new south campus union was designed with the campus master plan, so there was a bridge over Johnson st. to that area, I think even that building. It would have thrived, but instead now private developers are bidding on the space, nothing official, but no one in UW admin is denying it. Losing the south area means losing more student space for events/meetings and hanging out. What will students be doing in a couple of years when Union South is threatened by a wrecking ball? Chain ourselves to the building!
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 6:16pm):
I apologize that people voted uninformed, I felt that people were given every opportunity to see what we had planned. SLAC didn't have a plan, they still don't unless they will make up some fantasy world where they can also make up their own economic systems. The Union is an institution, keep that in mind...we behaved in a dignified and respectful manner. The complaints about SLAC voter harassment were made starting the first day of the election and continued, they are real and not evidence of "sour grapes", rather they are evidence of coersion, manipulation, and verbal abuse. How is anyone believing in a group that behaves irrationally to the extent of threatening the lives of student justices?
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 7:31pm):
"... I agree that Memorial is probably going to be a shithole in the next 5-10 years if they don't do anything about it."
Yeah, totally not worth an 1% cost increase for resident students (one half that percent for non-residents), let it go down the drain instead.
What a bunch of penny pinching fools!
***
The Wisconsin Union was founded in 1907, second only to Harvard's among U.S. universities.
In 1933, the University of Wisconsin at Madison became the first University to sell alcohol on premises, in the newly built German themed Rathskeller, overlooking Memorial Terrace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Wisconsin-Madison
***
http://www.union.wisc.edu/history/index.html
Anonymous (April 6, 2006 @ 7:45am):
Not everyone has mommy and daddy paying for their tuition.
200 dollars pays almost two electric/gas bills, fills up my car 10 times, pays 2/3 of my rent, would buy plenty of groceries, etc. etc. I do not have 200 extra dollars to give to this University, period. I am struggling to pay for my education as it is.
Combine this with the fact that next year is a budget year for WI, and the legislature could throw more record tuition hikes our way. WHY would I voluntarily vote to raise my tuition with this in mind?
Your comments really make Union supporters look bad. A bunch of rich kids who have no idea what it's like to actually pay for your own education. Penny pinching? I don't think so. I'd just rather guarantee that I can afford to attend here and live rather than guaranteeing that some students have somewhere to play.
Anonymous (April 6, 2006 @ 10:59am):
"The Union is an institution, keep that in mind...we behaved in a dignified and respectful manner." ...right it was completely fair to spend $200,000 on a pr firm to con students with free t-shirt, wrist bands, and other stupid things. SLAC barely had money for flyers, but they still got the message out to students. Amazing
