So you think Associated Students of Madison is dysfunctional? It is like a well-oiled machine in comparison to the clunky robot known as Student Labor Action Coalition. Of course, well-oiled machine\ in reference to ASM is akin to the beater you received on your sixteenth birthday—rusty, but trusty.
The Student Judiciary's decision to nullify the unfair April 4 referenda elections demonstrates praiseworthy commitment to democracy. Had the initiative election remained valid despite 436 uncounted ballots, it would have reduced the legitimacy of the Student Judiciary and future ASM elections.
Whether you love or hate ASM, the judiciary's decision affirms that our current student government values each student vote. Even though the 436 uncounted votes would not have changed the election outcome, the judiciary abided by the precedent established in Zyvix vs. Fox, which stated, ""Due process, under the ASM constitution, has no substantive element; it is limited solely to ensuring the integrity of the process.""
Wisconsin Union Directorate Vice President and quad-petitioner Shayna Hetzel said, ""Our entire case was about the process and about the disenfranchisement of all of the voters.""
Drop objections to the judiciary's decision, forget two botched elections and forgive Department of Information Technology's technological impotence. Focus on the referenda: the Living Wage initiative, sponsored by SLAC and the Wisconsin Union Facility Improvement Plan, sponsored by WUD.
Prior to the original elections for these referenda, SLAC launched a vicious misinformation campaign regarding WUFIP. In advertisments on campus, SLAC dubbed the plan ""WUFUCK."" SLAC Chairman Josh Healy consistently made baseless claims that WUFIP launched a pricey corporate advertising campaign to promote the plan. In the end, SLAC unjustly vilified a plan developed under full transparency and student direction.
When the WUFIP campaign re-launches next fall, students should remember ASM's commitment to protecting their votes and SLAC's efforts to sabotage them. Students have earned the right to distrust SLAC. Though ASM has encountered its share of governing dysfunctions, it has supported fair elections to the best of its capacity. The same cannot be said for SLAC.
Next year, students must remember they can vote ""yes"" for both the living wage referenda and WUFIP. Contrary to SLAC's claims, passing WUFIP does not imply sacrificing workers' rights. The Union is currently in the process of converting nine Limited Term Employees to full-time staff. Finally, WUFIP has no corporate linkages. Students directed the entire development of WUFIP and, if passed, will retain control over its implementation.
On the other hand, the Living Wage initiative has ambiguous goals and unclear sources of funding. While the initiative would provide a ""living wage"" of $10.23 an hour to Wisconsin Union, University Health Services and Recreational Sports employees, the program ultimately fails to improve living conditions of the employees it intends to aid.
The pay raise would not facilitate the formation of a union for LTEs nor would it provide any additional work benefits. The Living Wage initiative is good in theory, but SLAC's dishonest campaign and limited vision taints its legitimacy.
Regardless of SLAC's dirty campaign, students may have independently determined that WUFIP cost too much for too little benefit. At $96 per semester, WUFIP requires a substantial sacrifice on behalf of university students.
Without student sacrifice, however, Union South could fall into corporate hands. Quel horreur for SLAC! The cost of mandatory Memorial Union renovations could fall on students through increased product and service costs.
If passed, WUFIP would bring the Memorial Union up to fire and accessibility code, create a brand new energy-efficient Union South and provide services students requested in a survey conducted in fall 2005.
Students who see the plan as an expensive, futile project for aesthetic and entertainment purposes should consider the greater services implicated by WUFIP: SAFE programming, recreational sports, UHS, food services, facilities for student groups, recreational sports and diverse programming through WUD.
""It's student money that guarantees student power,"" Hetzel said, ""so once you take away student money, which to the administration or to corporations that means lack of interest, you also take away the power and control of the future of the union and the direction.""
SLAC disrespected voters through misinformation and intimidation and cannot expect student voters to trust the Living Wage initiative when the polls open next fall. Hetzel summarized the goal of the 2006 referenda election this way: ""get out and vote, but be informed.""
Informed voters must think twice about an initiative sponsored under false pretenses and reconsider the referendum that truly works toward everyone's best interest. Vote WUFIP.
Jill Klosterman is a sophomore majoring in political science and journalism. Her column appears every Thursday in The Daily Cardinal. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.\
