The Student Judiciary recently shot down the attempts of six Associated Students of Madison members to nullify the result of the Student Union Initiative. The plaintiffs argued the language on the ballot was misleading and that there was no force opposing the initiative, thus the result of the vote was unfair.
While their argument did not hold up against the Judiciary, there are more concerns with the vote that were not addressed as a part of the appeal.
The provisions of the initiative load too many different changes into one vote. Not only does the vote add $80 million of renovations to Memorial Union, it also adds an entirely new building that will replace Union South.
This ballot should have been appropriately divided into different provisions to guarantee the actual desires of the student body, as well as guaranteeing that students know exactly what they are paying for.
The actual wording of the initiative had five bullet points that detailed the improvements for the proposed renovation. Among these improvements were increased handicapped access and bringing the building up to fire code. These two improvements alone are enough reason for a person to vote in favor of the renovation, not minding the additional millions of dollars associated with a new Hoofers and theater expansion among others.
Voting ""no"" seemingly denied having a building with appropriate handicap access and fire code improvements, but there is no reason these ""improvements"" shouldn't have been made years ago.
The other half of the ballot, calling for a new south campus union, is another massive project that will cost the students and state a significant amount of money.
Most students will casually admit that Union South is an eyesore and is out of the way of a normal day's commute, but does that mean building an entirely new building—and a ""sustainable"" one at that—will change the status quo?
Sure, the building will be more attractive, but the location stays the same. Although the new building may be environmentally sustainable, having no building there at all would be the most environmentally friendly.
For a truly fair election, there should have been three votes, with the associated prices estimated on each vote. The first vote should have been for the additional Memorial Union renovations, the second for tearing down Union South and the third for building a south campus union, as opposed to having an open area with a few shops, perhaps.
Furthermore, there should not even need to be a vote for handicapped access and fire code, since these should not be the responsibility of the students. Many people other than students use the unions, and the university should be responsible for their safety and convenience, not the students.
Instead, the vote calls for all of these very significant changes in one vote, which will cost approximately $147 million. Regardless of how those six ASM members appealed the union initiative, the vote in its current form should not have occurred at all.
Having this kind of general vote over many renovations that affect future students more than the current ones highlights the impulsive nature of the committee that organized the initiative.
The only provision in the initiative that was necessary is the improvement to the safety and accessibility of the building. The other provisions are all a matter of whether the current students want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make improvements that trivially improve the quality of life on campus.
I'll stick with the philosophy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
