H -°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°-Voter turnout was 34.5 percent, with 13,788 completed ballots
-The referendum to appropriate segregated fees to fund a renovation of the Natatorium failed, with just more than 60 percent of those casting votes opposed to the project.
Natatorium
No 8354
Yes 5311
-Union South will remain Union South after the name beat out Varsity Union, Randall Union and Discovery Union
South Campus Union names:
Union South 8738
Randall Union 2311
Varsity Union 1787
Discovery Union 704
-Candidates elected (winners in bold):
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences/School of Veterinary Medicine
1. Matthew Manes 576
2. Jolie Lizotte 335
3. Adam Kaprelian 314
4. Jennifer Le 200
School of Business
1. Matthew Beemsterboer 476
2. Boan Sianipar 48
School of Education
1. Jeannette Martin 193
2. Dakota Alcantara-Camacho 111
3. Danez Smith 4. Emilie Krutzik 106
College of Engineering
1. TJ Madsen 868
2. Tyler Catfish Theobald 754
3. Ibrahim Raheem 443
School of Human Ecology, School of Nursing, and School of Pharmacy
1. Brian Deichl 476
2. Jasmine Savoy 291
3. Peter Lorenz 236
4. Kyle Bemis 143
College of Letters and Science
1. Andrea Nichols 1685
2. Tyler Junger 1497
3. Brandon Williams 1492
4. Carl Fergus 1363
5. Ace Hilliard 1299
6. Beth Huang 1245
7. Tom Templeton 1137
8. Zachary Ivins 1109
9. Kaitlyn Ziebell 1020
10. Melissa Hanley 1010
11. Jonah Zinn 1010
12. Kyle Woolwich 900
13. Adam Johnson 871
14. Tina Trevino-Murphy 849
15. Jake Burow 845
16. Kevin Boyle 835
17. Natalie North 799
18. Jessi Indresano 786
19. Kayla Lubenow 785
20. Molly Bryers 760
21. Brittany Hopkins 738
22. Bryan Mette 640
23. Eric Ballecer 630
24. Eric Koch 539
25. Peter Clancy 459
26. John Kaplan 51
27. Boan Sianipar 31
28. Ron Acker 28
29. Jenni Le 26
30. Adam Kaprelian 25
31. Ryan Garza 22
32. Jair Alvarez 16
33. Nick Desien 15
34. Andrew Bond 14
35. Margaret McGarry 14
36. Erkin Otles 14
37. Aaron Redlich 14
38. Nick Todaro 14
39. Aaron Wasserman-Olin 14
40. Jill Wichterman 14
41. Jacob Wittman 14
42. Brian Reynolds 11
43. Nico Savidge 11
44. Alex Sink 11
45. Greg Polinger 10
School of Medicine and Public Health
1. Samuel Stevenson 258
School of Law
1. Cale Plamann 140
2. Randall Melchert 47
3. Ajit Iyer 26
Graduate School
1. Kyle VandenLangenberg 2952
2. Joseph Kuo 2205
3. Michael Childers 981
4. Emilie Krutzik 59
5. Michael Lock 30
6. Colin Ingram 12
7. Nicholas Brigham Schmuhl 10
8. Kristina Krull 9
9. Kenneth Rudinger 9
10. Kyle Kleinbeck 8
11. Patrick Schneider 8
Special Students
1. Lauren Vollrath 5
Student Services Finance Committee
1. Andrea Nichols 1956
2. Nicholas Novak 1887
3. Kara Coates 1638
4. Jake Burow 1372
5. Matthew Manes 1307
6. Cale Plamann 1280
7. Samuel Peters 1197
8. Ace Hilliard 1122
9. Jair Alvarez 1107
10. Peter Studer 1048
11. Zhizhong Pang 806
12.Yanping Weng 554
13. Boan Sianipar 19
14. John Kaplan 12
Senior Class President
1. Matt Beemsterboer 1002
2. Ryan Garza 993
3. Tina Trevino-Murphy 986
4. Matthew Manes 985
Senior Class Vice President
1. Melissa Hanley 1143
2. Tyler Catfish Theobald 952
3. Tyler Junger 942
4. Misha Hanson 763
5. Ismael Cuevas 62
Senior Class Secretary
1. Misha Hanson 1298
2. Carl Fergus 1288
3. Tyler Junger 1176
Senior Class Treasurer
1. Michael Romenesko 1923
2. Jessi Indresano 1700
-Other referendum items:
Student Council members no longer obligated to attend United Council meetings
Yes 8601
No 3092
Some elections may be moved to the fall
Yes 8616
No 2333
Check The Badger Herald tomorrow for full coverage.
IP hash: 9e712b95
Holy cow. 35% turnout?
IP hash: 0e90c3b2
Thank you Badger Herald and ASM for presenting LIES for the past few weeks about NatUp, which resulted in many misinformed voters. Our current recreational facilities will continue to be inadequate for many years to come (until the issue is re-voted on). to make this clear, they did look for private donors, and alternative funding options. Let it be known that the Nat WILL NOT be built now, unlike what no new seg fees said.
IP hash: cc711f50
THANK THE LORD that we didn’t start the precedent of using Seg Fees to pay for construction projects. Not all of our mommies and daddies take out their checkbooks when tuition time comes!
IP hash: 42ce1a3a
Umm… The new Union South is being at least partially funded by Seg Fees. The precedent is already set.
IP hash: 711aea76
If I hit my head on an open cabinet door, I say “ow! I shouldn’t be more careful.” I don’t go banging it repeatedly because I set a precedent of hitting my head on the cabinet.
IP hash: e1848991
Oh please! Why should students be forced to pay for something so bloated and misguided as the nat renovation? A cafe? glass all around? what, do students need to be pampered when they work out? NatUp didn’t even bother to find good donors, Barry the cheerleader loving Alvaraz is the highest paid state employee, why not hold him to the fire? If its cramped when you work out, go when its not busy, such jocko complaining only proves that this once distinguished university is turning into a diploma mill, and research firm.
IP hash: 39a3ce5b
Yes, and we all know that this NatUp proposal will be on the ballot again next year, and again the year after that. And then again. Each time, the supporters won’t make the effort to change the proposal to something that is more popular with students, and they won’t spend the intervening years getting started on the fundraising that should be done in advance of a vote.
You know, when the university wants to build something on campus and goes to the legislature asking for money, the university ALWAYS has millions of dollars in donations committed to the project already, with a plan to raise millions more, so that the state sees an opportunity to get $2 value from every taxpayer dollar spent. The NatUp crowd would be wise to take a lesson from how the university funds most of its campus building projects.
In the end, though, the NatUp crowd probably won’t do that. Instead, we can expect to see the exact same proposal fail by the exact same margin next year, and the year after, until the NatUp people finally get tired of failure. Then they will find some lame excuse to invalidate a vote, will call a re-vote on short notice and without publicizing it much, and will make the re-vote a paper ballot that is only available at a few out-of-the-way locations on campus.
Sound familiar? Yep. It worked for the Union boondoggle, so why not pull out the sleazy tactics again?
IP hash: 711aea76
If you disagree with the results, that’s perfectly fine. The NatUp supporters were definitely not coming out of nowhere with this, and there are valid reasons for why something should be done looking to the future.
That said, don’t go calling the well-over eight thousand people who voted against it too stupid to make up their own mind, which is essentially what you’re doing. There are also a lot of good reasons why the NatUp proposal, as presented, was not a great idea.
IP hash: 0e90c3b2
Thank God Tyler Junger didn’t win! Hes been a terrible representative!!
IP hash: fa9e607d
It’s unfortunate turnout was so pretty low. That said there were some pretty close votes.
IP hash: 2887b20f
Are you kidding me? 35% turnout is great here! its usually around like 5 to 15%.
IP hash: 0e90c3b2
uhhh buddy, 34% turnout is a school record!
IP hash: c6eec3ce
Low? This is the highest turnout in years. Generally the turnout for elections runs 5-9%.
IP hash: 02c00a24
RU serious? 35% is more than double the expected turnout!
IP hash: 49ec940b
I look forward to working with you, Catfish.
IP hash: 345b4735
How has Tyler Junger’s performance been so bad? He still did win a place as a representative.
IP hash: da18ce92
HAHAHA NAT FAIL YES! seriously who would’ve chose Discovery Union for the new name? The hell is this the disney channel? Discovery kids or somethin?
IP hash: 692455ee
I am relieved that we successfully avoided the construction of yet another eyesore of a building to Madison, especially so close to lakeshore.
NatUp? NatDown!
IP hash: 502ab89e
More like BoilerDown
IP hash: 87a274ea
I don’t think the NAT vote lost by 3000 because of the Badger Herald…
IP hash: aabcc086
Norwood, 35% is actually pretty high for an ASM election, some turnouts have been below 10 or 15 percent.
IP hash: 0e90c3b2
Uhhh duh! Thanks to all the lies on campus, this low cost investment of the nat will be over $100 million in the future, that students WILL PAY FOR!! NO MATTER WHAT! the university is not paying for this! One of the herald reporters FINALLY got it right:
http://badgerherald.com/blogs/opinion/2010/04/14/theserfandthenat.php
IP hash: c6eec3ce
..That’s a blog, sweetheart. Blog = opinion.
IP hash: 70f8b50e
It’s an unprecedented mandate for the status quo! A record(?) number of students voted not to take on another seg fee building project, not to change the name of Union South, and not to elect the latest slate promising sweeping change in ASM.
IP hash: 2d270f17
I’m not happy that MPOWER didn’t win…but I don’t think that the other votes should be looked at in such a cynical light. First of all, the other union names were pretty awful and sounded like they were straight out of one of those preteen tv shows. Most importantly, voting against a seg fee increase shows that students are not willing to get bullied by the university and its’ $30,000 campaign to increase fees for years for a building that could be funded through other means (and hopefully not made so excessive and over-the-top as the plan appears to be). I believe this vote shows that the student body is saying that it is sick of the rising cost of attendance, and I am happy to see that there must be students who presumably could afford a cost hike were looking out for their many peers who already struggle to afford the rising cost of college attendance. So, considering the university has recently been jumping at the chance to increase our cost of attendance, I don’t think voting down another increase should be considered ‘supporting the status quo.’
IP hash: 5d51e3d0
I totally agree. I don’t think you can group the vote down of Union South names and NatUp with the only partially successful passing of the slate. MPOWER had good plans for ASM, which needs a sweeping change to gain the reputation it had so many years ago.
IP hash: 7f145e98
9:00pm,
I think that you’re missing the point here. The students have stated categorically that they do not want another increase in seg frees (up 78% since 2003). Perhaps, private donors were sought and alternative funding options considered. I don’t know. What I do know is that the inability of the group to secure any significant funding commitments from these groups prior to asking for a massive financial hand-out from the students means that this project had to die. Maybe our facilities are inadequate, they should remain so if rectifying the problem means raising student fees again (did I mention that tuition has also been rising at a steady rate?). In the meantime, while a meaningful search for alternative funding sources is conducted, I’d recommend that you partake in a walk or jog, ride a bike, join a private gym, or any of the myriad other recreational activities that are well provided for in the community of Madison, Wi.
IP hash: 0e90c3b2
haha you idiots:
http://badgerherald.com/blogs/opinion/2010/04/14/theserfandthenat.php
IP hash: d228b3e3
boo-hoo. cry me a river and drown in it. Whoever wants a new nat, have your parents write a check. Dont make another group of people pay more money because of something that YOU voted on, something that you had no financial stake in. The nat is not in good shape but if it is to be rebuilt, find another way to do it.
IP hash: 0d69c176
You’re right. I hear construction is hard work. Two birds, one stone.
IP hash: 55f9d228
ASM and the BH should be ashamed. To allow the TAA…No New Seg Fees group to manipulate the student population for their own personal agenda by telling lies (this facility will NEVER be funded by any other source other than students) is a disgrace for this awesome university. From here on out, ASM can take the complaints from Rec Sports users…..
IP hash: 8ed0adbc
If NatUp had won, you’d be saying that the students saw the light (and their parents say the bill)
But since they lost, you blame ASM/BH/DC/TAA.
How about blaming Rec Sports and Mike Burglar for not funneling $30,000 in calling up pro sports alumni and wealthy donors for this athletics facility?
If the NatUp campaign had started with that goal, well, I probably would have voted Yes.
IP hash: e45acee1
Good response Ben
IP hash: e45acee1
Who are we to burden future students with another building project for 30 years, to make them pay another $109?
We don’t know how much tuition will rise, housing cost will rise (dorms increase each year), the inflation rate in general. That $109 could be the deal breaker of someones higher education opportunity.
I really really really want a new Nat, and with the indoor turf? Freak yeah! But i feel that students should not be paying for the building cost, at least that much.
If it was like $15-$25 per semester, I would do it. But don’t take my monthly beer money away from me you morons.
IP hash: 2d270f17
So…you complain about the No New Seg Fees campaign but you have no problem with the fact that the NatUp campaign used $30,000 of university money for their campaign? Rec Sports gave them that money to hire a private business to make a pretty website.
IP hash: 55f9d228
BH, an “independent news source” my f-ing ass. ASM +BH+ TAA (Ooooops, I mean No New Seg Fees) = manipulation of the student population.
ASM, Rec Sports just changed their complaint line to your phone number in the SAC, which students are funding to the tune of about 30 million..(I am sure the student population as a whole is benefitting from two floors of meeting spaces) Sit comfortably in your $700 chairs while the complaints roll in…
IP hash: 9e712b95
To be honest, the No New Seg fees folks had little impact on me. When it came to down to it, the referendum was asking me to make a decision that would affect kids 4-5 years down the road. I decided not to make a decision on their behalf, and voted no.
IP hash: 4ce32c7b
35% voter turnout is definitely an improvement over the years past. I would say this was due mainly to the buildup leading up to the election. I personally saw much more propaganda put out by NatUp, including their t-shirts and wristbands. Ultimately though, the majority of students decided to put an end to increasing segregated fees. With tuition and other expenses rising over the past few years, this seems like the logical choice made by the students.
IP hash: 7037a3d1
NatUP lost because of the Union’s greed and power play in the Union South deal.
The Union should be required to spend 24/7 soliciting donations to cover the entire cost of the Union South project and stop the seg fee tax for their stupid bldg. The only part of the Union construction voters would have approved on its own is the Memorial Union improvements to bring it up to the building code.
IP hash: 4e61a630
Correction- Ryan Acker, not Ron Acker, got 28th in the L&S rep race….. HAHAHAHA
IP hash: 5035656f
I would say the graduate vote had a lot to do with this election. Look at the number of votes the graduate representatives garnered as a whole. Over 6000. And remember there are only approximately 8000 graduate students. If you look at past spring ASM elections (available on ASMs website) this is almost 100 times the typical graduate turnout. Yet there is no mention of this in any of the BH articles. I don’t think we should underestimate the graduate representatives this time around.
IP hash: 711aea76
You’re a little low, but not much. For those who want a precise number: Fall 2009 enrollment was 9,116.
http://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/community.php#community
IP hash: 19c621ec
Even if students end up paying for a new Nat via increased tuition, at least it will be a transparent increase obvious to prospective students and their parents, rather than a “back door” increase that is designed to be overlooked. The press pays attention to tuition hikes, and so the University is acutely sensitive about those; transferring the cost of new projects to seg fees effectively permitted them to increase the burden on students without attracting the same level of attention and the possible negative consequences.
As well, increasing tuition rather than seg fees reduces the burden on most graduate students, who are terribly underpaid as it is.
Now there should be an investigation of the $30,000 in University funds that went toward trying to influence the outcome of this election.
IP hash: 19ba285f
How many screws do you have loose? An investigation into Rec Sports spending $30,000 of private money to promote NatUp? They used private money so why do you give two shits.
IP hash: a4572a9c
Because it’s $30,000 that Rec Sports had in their hands that they could have, I don’t know, improved their facilities with? But instead, they handed it to the University’s biggest asshats to waste. Stellar use of funds there.
IP hash: 5d51e3d0
It matters because that’s $30,000 that could have been put towards actual renovations to the building and not stickers and flyers. I know advertising is important, but c’mon! We are students! Take advantage of donations and cheap options like online advertising and StudentPrint.