The Associated Students of Madison Student Judiciary oversaw a hearing Monday evening of a student-led group contesting the Student Union Initiative. As of press time, the Student Judiciary had not issued a ruling on the case.
Student Judiciary Chief Justice and UW-Madison junior Josh Tyack said the panel has five school days from the end of Monday’s hearing to issue a decision.
The group filed a petition against the ASM Student Election Commission, seeking to overturn the passing of the initiative. However, the SEC designated Wisconsin Union Directorate members to be the respondents in the case. The SUI passed in the ASM Fall 2006 elections last month.
Petitioners argued the initiative had misleading wording and publicity. Furthermore, they said the SUI locked in a segregated fees increase that detracts from current and future students’ self-governance.
“It’s really hard to say this is a neutral initiative—it’s not,” said Patrick Elliott, first-year UW-Madison law student and leader of the petition.
“There were some major process problems,” Elliott said, stressing he does not oppose changes to Memorial Union and Union South, but rather opposes the presentation of the initiative and the proposed manner of funding the building modifications.
He added the wording of the initiative misled students about what they would pay for if the initiative passed, as well as what the potential outcomes would be for the two Unions if it failed. He said proponents of the SUI misled students to believe if the initiative failed, Union South would be torn down and Memorial Union would close.
UW-Madison senior and Wisconsin Union President Shayna Hetzel called the petition’s objections to the SUI “unclear and misguided.” She said students had full access to voting and to information about the initiative prior to elections, including at numerous meetings and open forums.
Elliott also said the initiative limited student input in having both the Union South and Memorial Union projects grouped together, for some students may wish to support one building without supporting the other.
He decried what he called the “all or nothing” aspect of the campaign, saying students may have felt they were either voting for needed renovations like increased wheelchair accessibility or rejecting the renovations entirely.
Hetzel said the campaign surveyed students extensively and came to the conclusion that students desired to vote for the two Unions’ renovations in one initiative.
