OPINION & EDITORIAL
Editorial: Millions for Donations, Not One Cent for Tribute
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Vote no on union referendum (March 23, 2006)
- Wisconsin Union Directorate promotes student interests (February 22, 2006)
- A less perfect Union (October 17, 2006)
- Consider choices in election (March 23, 2006)
- Referendum aids LTE employees (October 17, 2005)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Since last fall, members of the University of Wisconsin community have been crafting an extravagant plan to renovate Memorial Union and reconstruct Union South.
Not surprisingly, the plan leaves students footing a sizable portion of the bill.
Wisconsin Union Directorate representatives are currently collecting signatures in an effort to place a referendum on the spring ballot that, if passed, could increase segregated fees up to $192 a year. Currently, students pay $666 a year in segregated fees. Under the proposed plan, segregated fees could increase to a total of $858, where they will remain for 30 years, not including any unrelated ASM hikes. Segregated fees are expected to cover almost 60 percent of the project.
This board has consistently been cautious of the exorbitant use of segregated fees, and this referendum is no exception.
There is no need for excessive compelled charity to fund this project. When Memorial Union was completed in 1928, the construction of the building was funded exclusively through voluntary donations from students and others. Student segregated fees did not exist at the time to fund the landmark that now graces Langdon Street.
It would be in the best interest of UW students for WUD to follow a similar path with the current proposal by seeking additional donations and naming rights for this project before asking students to fork over more money at a time when tuition has already increased 33 percent over the last two years.
The current proposal seeks to raise $30 to $40 million in donations, a figure WUD considers optimistic, but one this board considers unsatisfactory.
There is also no harm in assigning naming rights to the new building that will adorn the south side of campus or any new spaces of Memorial Union. A gracious $25 million gift led the university to place the Kohl name on a certain athletic complex on campus, and a $10 million donation helped construct the Nicholas-Johnson Pavilion and Plaza, which serves as the Kohl Center's practice facility. Other large donations also drove that project.
In addition to the funding aspect of the union plan, there is the question of necessity. A main impetus behind the plan is to increase student activity space. However, the Student Activity Center — which will be built on the site of the current University Square — is intended to serve as a hub for student organizations, offices and activities in the near future.
This isn't the first time WUD has attempted to place a referendum on the ballot to fund union renovations through segregated fees. The failed referendum last spring should have sent a message to WUD that they shouldn't be looking first and foremost to forcing taxes on the student body. They should be looking for generous donors instead.
Though a renovation of Memorial Union and reconstruction of Union South appear necessary in light of safety and access concerns, coupled with general decay, the current proposal simply relies too heavily on an unjust segregated-fee increase. We encourage WUD to devise a more responsible funding proposal for this significant project.
Mac VerStandig did not participate in the crafting of this editorial.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 8:26am):
This could be something that we could be proud of. When I graduate and walk away from this campus, I could say "I helped save the Union so others can enjoy it too." I can be part of a living tradition.
This is the MOST appropriate way to use segregated fees. The Wisconsin Union was the whole reason segregated fees began!
The SAC isn't for people who aren't in student organizations AND it doesn't have meeting rooms. Merely offices.
$192 is a lot of money. I agree. But what else would you be spending that money on in one year on campus?
Four nights of extravagant drinking?
Books for one or two classes?
or it can go to creating a building that preserves the Wisconsin Idea which has begun to slowly fade. We have a chance to be progressive and innovative with Universal Design and with LEED rated sustainability.
I say student funding 55% of the building is reasonable. Over 55% of the users of the Union will be students.
SUPPORT WUFIP. www.union.wisc.edu/fip
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 9:29am):
Why do I want to spend my money funding something I don't ever use?
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 10:04am):
I suggest that the editors and other critics look at the Student Choice Awards that appear in this very paper: on p. 4, ***The Best Campus Building is Memorial Union.*** STUDENT CHOICE.
Why wouldn't [and shouldn't] students support the best campus building?!?!?!?! Are we that selfish that we don't want to contribute so that future students can enjoy the best campus building in 10, 25 or 70 years from now?
The Kohl Center sold its soul to the corporate sponsors. Look at the hockey ice. Cocoa-Cola, Alliant plastered everywhere imaginable. Is that what this campus wants?
I thought Madison was a liberal, progressive campus fighting the long, good fight against monopolizing corporations and not hopig for a better tomorrow but making a better tomorrow. Would it make our opposition happier if we supported the labor practices of Cocoa-Cola and Walmart?
What do you have to say about that SLAC? Does that sound better?
Soon, the Union for students, ran by students and of the students will die and the UW Administration will contrsuct another commercial corporate conference center for their donors and researchers and most definitely not for students.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 10:22am):
Segregated fees. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 11:44am):
Meh.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 12:36pm):
"$192 is a lot of money. I agree. But what else would you be spending that money on in one year on campus?"
It might help with my rent. It might pay for my books. It might help keep me from freezing to death in the winter.
I'll be happy to donate my hard-earned money to the university once I've graduated and have a good job. For now, I'm already working three jobs just to make ends meet. I'm not willing to fork over almost $200 quite so casually.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 3:46pm):
Mac VerStandig did not participate in the crafting of this editorial.
Does he have to put that in after his shameful abuse of the press when he used this collumn for his own rantings when his fraternity ZBT lost a judicial board hearing?
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 3:53pm):
The fee wouldn't even be in place until Fall 2007...so juniors and seniors won't even pay the segregated fee.
Also, the plan is to have the new building done in 2010 so that is a relatively quick project so that the students who are paying will get to see and use the new building.
I agree with the poster in support of this with the exception of the casual use of $192. $200 is a lot of money. I also work three jobs. But I think that it's worth it. I really do.
I believe in the purpose of the Union. I'm not intimately connected to the Union, I use it once in a while to grab a sandwich and sometimes a scoop of ice cream, but I'm not what you would call 'a regular.'
But I believe that WUD has the right intentions. If this wasn't a great project, then why are so many people excited for it? I know that Polygon [conglomeration of engineering orgs.] supports it and I've heard that WISPIRG and GUTS are behind it too. I don't think that there is ulterior motives behind the Union's plan.
I think they've done a phenomenal job at involving student input and having students lead the entire process.
This can't even be compared to last year's master plan because everything is different. The people who are running it are different. The project is different. THE PRICE IS LOWER.
I work 3 jobs. I don't use the Union often.
I think this is a great opportunity for us students to participate in something great.
I'm in support of this project.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 8:02pm):
"But I believe that WUD has the right intentions."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I'm sick of the university and the state legislature trying to clean up their financial mess on my back. If they want the new buildings so badly, they should go out and get alumni to donate the money for them.
Anonymous (February 14, 2006 @ 9:09pm):
I certainly sympathize with the previous poster in regards to declining state support for higher education.
However the poster is mistaken in associating WUFIP with the legislature and the UW administration.
The Wisconsin Union Facilities Improvement Plan is an initiative of UW Madison students. It was developed based on the ideas of over 5000 students who responded to the email survey sent this fall, the hundreds of students involved in focus groups and open forums, and the dozens of students who met directly in planning meeting with architects and planners.
The signature drive and referendum is led by students in Wisconsin Union Directorate, supported by students in WISPIRG, Polygon, WASB, GUTS, not to mention countless individual student advocates.
And the fact is, the state, and the "University" (in other words, our tuition), does not pay for the Union currently. Through segregated fees, students currently only pay to operate Memorial Union and Union South -- in other words, through seg fees, we keep the lights on. All the services offered, products sold, and programs (over 1000 a year!) presented are financed with internal revenue (in other words, from that pitcher you buy on the Terrace, or from the catering that your cousin ordered for her wedding), and occasional private donations. Not bad for a non-profit, huh?
If you read the language of the referendum, you will see that the financing includes $30-40 million of private donations, and possibly state and/or federal funds. The Union is ambitiously pursuing donors, but we're competing against an already saturated philanthropy market.
These buildings do not build themselves. The Union will do everything it can to raise private funds without sacrificing student power and the Union's and University's integrity (i.e., don't count on coming to the 'Starbucks Union' anytime soon). The more private funds we raise -- and perhaps even state and federal funds for historic preservation -- the lower the student fee will be. (Remember, $96 is the MAXIMUM per student semester to cover the bonds -- every reasonable effort must be made to ensure that the actual fee will be lower).
But hey. Money means power. Student money means student power. Would you want anyone else running our Unions?
Adam Robinson
WUD Student Performance Director
