H 66°, L 50° | Tomorrow: 
H 62°, L 39°
Editor’s note: Eric Schmidt, Director of the Wisconsin Union Directorate Distinguished Lecture Series, recused himself from this opinion.
When it comes to the Wisconsin Union, this board — and likely many members of the student body — hate that segregated fees are going to fund the reconstruction of the new Union South. We have stated in the past that the Student Union Initiative was an unnecessary proposal and irresponsible use of what is essentially student taxation to remedy what is essentially a nuisance at its worst.
What’s more, we acknowledge the vote to approve this project was illegitimate. The combination of poor management by DoIT and even poorer justification for a revote by the Associated Students of Madison the following semester played equal parts in ruining the democratic process. Students were effectively forced to accept the plan by way of attrition.
Of course, we also recognize that this was more than two years ago. The Legislature approved the plan, and we are building a new Union South.
Student Services Finance Committee Secretary Tyler Junger understood all of this when he, along with a slight majority of SSFC, voted against a measure to keep segregated fee funding for the Union South project constant — at $96 per year, starting next academic year —when construction begins.
Aside from making SSFC look absurd by advocating an unrealistic proposal, the execution of such a measure would only result in segregated fees being raised the next year. Considering rising construction costs are already boosting the final price tag of this project, members of the student body should be more wary of future handouts than the ones already given to the Wisconsin Union.
However, while we disagree with how SSFC Vice Chair and Herald columnist Kyle Szarzynski voted on this matter, he is right about one thing: The Wisconsin Union has to be held accountable by students. That starts with making sure the Union comes prepared to SSFC meetings with a proper explanation of how it is spending the Union building funds obtained by segregated fees.
Junger’s proposal to have SSFC evaluate these budgets in tandem with the Union is at least a first step. If the Union continues to treat SSFC and the student body as a farce, we urge Chancellor Biddy Martin to hold off on any funding decisions until the students have had adequate input on the budget.
Only if that fails should we start talking about more drastic measures.
IP hash: 98cb8e9e
excellent points, all.
Still, there must be something we can do besides sit on our hands and watch them flush our money down the tube. Especially with the economy the way it is.
IP hash: d92689f7
“What�s more, we acknowledge the vote to approve this project was illegitimate. The combination of poor management by DoIT and even poorer justification for a revote by the Associated Students of Madison the following semester played equal parts in ruining the democratic process.”
Do any of you even remember what actually happened during the Spring 2006 elections? DoIT’s software LOST hundreds of actual student votes. To count that election as valid would have disenfranchised a huge number of students. How is that a poor justification for a valid, democratic revote where every single student vote was counted? The complaint should be about student apathy (including this paper’s own editorial section, which only published two editorials on the issue prior to the vote) and the lack of a unified Vote No campaign, not about placing the blame where it doesn’t belong.
IP hash: 65b1a464
The fact that the Wisconsin Union takes SSFC seriously is clearly evident in the fact that our representatives have attended no less than four SSFC meetings in the past three weeks.
SSFC members received detailed breakdowns of the project budget and had the full opportunity to question Union representatives on any aspect of the project and its budget.
This editorial fails to mention that the Wisconsin Union itself is also an official shared governance body. Students hold a majority of seats on both Union Council (the institution’s governing board) and the building project’s Design Committee (the primary body charged with giving design direction to the project architects). We take student interests very seriously because, as your representatives, it is our responsibility to ensure the Wisconsin Union is meeting the needs and furthering the desires of the student body as a whole.
However, the editorial’s point of better education for the entire campus community is well taken. We have added updated budget information to our website (newunion.wisc.edu) and will put in a renewed effort to keep it current as the project progresses.
Dan Cornelius VP for Project Management [email protected]
IP hash: 1ab52815
Past students have had to sacrifice to build the buildings that we currently enjoy everyday, right? Seems to me like we are only doing the same thing for the students that will come after us.
assuming that buildings have been built with seg fees before.
IP hash: b228f276
How about we indict them for fraud, election fraud, and grand theft?
IP hash: 7dd2c9cf
Rec sports will be coming for your money next
IP hash: eb701914
“Do any of you even remember what actually happened during the Spring 2006 elections? DoIT’s software LOST hundreds of actual student votes.”
It was well-established at the time that the number of votes affected were not enough to overturn the defeat of the referendum. But because it was the Union, they gave them the re-vote AND a closed system where there were only four polling places (one of which was the Union) AND the Union put on a full court blitz in the form of a continuously running pro-referendum video on the first floor of the Union leading up to the vote AND they promised voters this time around that they wouldn’t have to pay as much per year as the poor suckers who came later.
To claim that this was anything but an illegal manipulation makes you either an idiot or a liar or both…
IP hash: eb701914
“This editorial fails to mention that the Wisconsin Union itself is also an official shared governance body.”
It is not an elected body, Dan, it is a body of people interested in the Union. Wow, what a disingenuous point you make.
Fewer than 2,000 students voted ‘yes’ for this, the Union manipulated the whole process and for you to say it is legitimate is self-serving at best.
You are telling us it was a fair process because it provides you with a job. It just doesn’t wash…
IP hash: 2f75cc1d
@7:25: Some buildings are boosted by huge (6-7 figure sums) donations from UW alumni.
IP hash: f41cba6a
In many ways, I respect the Badger Herald’s charge to continually “badger” the Wisconsin Union to provide the best possible services and information to its constituency - the UW Campus. I think it is well within the rights of a campus newspaper to hold the benefactors of student dollars accountable for their actions.
However, I disagree with the way in which these charges against the Union repeatedly drum up a firestorm of, essentially, finger-pointing. The Wisconsin Union, unlike ASM, is fairly successful in engaging students in every aspect of their operation, including student vote campaigns and the building project. Sustained student involvement in the Union creates an environment that fosters both change, innovation and overall, success - which is much more than can be said about ASM at this point.
Stop grumbling about past actions. What’s done is done. Now use that critical energy to make sure we have the best damn building student dollars (and Union investment and Alumni gifts) can create.
IP hash: 10428df9
“When it comes to the Wisconsin Union, this board � and likely many members of the student body � hate that segregated fees are going to fund the reconstruction of the new Union South. We have stated in the past that the Student Union Initiative was an unnecessary proposal and irresponsible use of what is essentially student taxation to remedy what is essentially a nuisance at its worst.”
Ed Board - While I hate to take up old issues, I’m still miffed as to why you fail to see the need for student segregated fees to partially fund the New South Union Building project. Have you no sense of history? Have you no sense of seeing this campus through to the next century? As previous students have done before our time on this campus, we have to take up the cause of providing for future generations. And if OUR dollars are used to create the building, OUR say in what the building should look like, and what functions it should serve is ensured. Given your self proclaimed “watchdog”position on this campus, I see your lack of buy in to this concept both contradictory and selfish.
Additionally, I take issue with the idea that replacing Union South is remedying a “nuisance at worst”. I find that to be entirely false. We have a real need on this campus for more SPACE for student organizations, student programming. While Union South will never have the benefit of a location like the terrace, it’s programming capabilities can provide a destination for students and community members. Perhaps even breath new life into an area of campus that is decidedly lifeless and gray for most of the year - that’s certainly not something the previous building could achieve.
IP hash: b228f276
“Stop grumbling about past actions. What’s done is done.”
In other words, “we stole your money, now shut up and take it.” Sorry, but that’s not going to happen. We’re going to keep shouting about the unethical, fraudulent, greedy behavior of the WUD.
IP hash: 3c49bb27
Re: @11:26am…
The Union wasn’t one of the polling sites. Polling sites were open at Holt Commons, Gordon Commons, College Library and Wendt Library for 2 days. Students had plenty of opportunities to vote, but it just boiled down to laziness and apathy.
As far as the amount the Union spent and how they used their own facilities to promote their message, there was nothing within the ASM rules preventing them from doing so. And, the rules haven’t been changed since that election either. If you don’t like how this process worked out, then work with ASM to change the rules.
And to address your concern that it was an “illegal manipulation of votes,” what proof do you have to back this up? You’re basically saying that an invalid election should have been validated, never mind the disenfranchisement of hundreds of students, because it achieved the result you wanted. That is a pretty weak argument, and definitely flies in the face of the fundamental values of free and fair elections.
IP hash: 98cb8e9e
hey, 1:11pm
Actually, the Union WAS one of the polling places. Even if your argument was true, FOUR polling places on a campus of 41,000 students? Are you kidding me?
Let’s put all the national presidential polling places in Utah in 2012 and reject any complaints that we have held anything less than a free and fair election.
People don’t buy the election as valid because it isn’t. You rammed it through and got your building - congratulations. Pardon me, if the students who get stuck with the bill for this colossal waste don’t say ‘thank you.’
IP hash: d92689f7
The Union was NOT a polling place. I don’t know what Kool-Aid you’re drinking, but the four polling places were Holt, Gordon, College Library and Wendt Library. If you don’t believe me check the BH archives.
IP hash: eb701914
I think the gal’s main point was:
“People don’t buy the election as valid because it isn’t. You rammed it through and got your building - congratulations. Pardon me, if the students who get stuck with the bill for this colossal waste don’t say ‘thank you.’”
You didn’t really address it but then again, you don’t seem to know what you are talking about.
IP hash: 70e19aec
I don’t know about any of you, but my college money was in the stock market. It’s dwindled to almost nothing. WE CAN’T AFFORD THIS! This rebuilding of union south is the MOST ridiculous thing ever. What was wrong with it? It was only like 30 years old—most buildings on campus are much older. The project was totally unjustified. This proves that the university doesn’t actually care about students, they’re just looking good reasons to make themself look better to get research money and recruit people. (Honestly, no one cares about the undergrads here…) Sad, isn’t it? ASM isn’t any better. It repeatedly tries to manipulate its power to get what it wants. Let’s get some people in ASM who actually care about students and aren’t so ridiculously self-serving. Who’s in it, anyway, all the rich kids here on daddy’s money who think that this rampant spending doesn’t matter to the rest of us? And that goes for the University and Wisconsin Union board too—obviously neither understand how much some of us are sacrificing to even BE here. that exta $400 we end up paying for some ridiculous, unnecessary project doesn’t help. Maybe some student group should get a protest going, or a sit in or something? The University, ASM, and Wisconsin Union shouldn’t be able to manipulate our votes and our money like this, AND make years and years of students pay the price. We need to take action on this!
IP hash: 97d91588
^ Seriously? The stock market? That means you either lost a very small amount on the market (i.e. under 5k, because idk a single college student who is stupid enough to invest a large sum of money instead of paying for school) or your parents lost their money to pay for your college, which technically makes you one of those rich kids on daddy’s money. So now you can’t take part in ASM either, by your own rules, unless by some miracle you invented the ShamWow and that is where your money came from.