Union renovation doesn’t pass

Mired by complaints and critics, the UCommons referendum to renovate the bottom floor of the Student Union was voted down Feb. 8 with about 54 percent of the 7,123 votes.

The unofficial results were released late Thursday night after Jessica Womack, chief justice of the Student Supreme Court, lifted an injunction to delay their release.

The delay resulted from a complaint filed Feb. 7 by Student Congress representative Adam Horowitz and three others against Student Body President Hogan Medlin and Andrew Phillips, chairman of the Board of Elections. The debate concerned whether the UCommons referendum should have had a place on the Feb. 8 ballot.

If the referendum had passed, it would have raised student fees by $16 per year for 30 years to fund an $11 million renovation to the Union’s bottom floor.

The parties agreed to drop the suit and work to clarify Title VI of the Student Code to avoid the conflicting interpretations which led to the complaints.

“We felt it wasn’t worth wasting the student body’s time with this lawsuit,” Horowitz said. He added, “The new bill would remove the loopholes and clarify certain parts of the bill that are currently unclear.”

Complaints alleged the Union broke election law by posting campaign materials and petitioning in prohibited areas, including academic buildings and dining halls. Other complaints cited the use of Twitter and the marketing of UCommons on the home page of Union computers.

Union officials did not deny those claims, arguing instead that they are not subject to Title VI.

“The Student Union did things to inform students. They shouldn’t have fallen under Student Code the same way,” said Tyler Mills, president of the Carolina Union Activities Board.

Mills said the negative attention surrounding the referendum, along with a general aversion to raising student fees, led to the referendum’s failure.

Phillips said it was unclear why students voted as they did, though he noted the student body also voted against raising the student activities fee by $3.

“In this economic climate, students are sensitive to anything that could raise the cost of their education,” Phillips said.

However, Phillips said all parties involved in the injunction believed that the problem concerned the involvement of University employees in the campaign.

“It’s about the authority of University administration to act in ways that could influence student votes,” said Phillips.

Horowitz, who will be cosponsoring the bill with Medlin, said they will focus on clarifying the role of the board and giving it the power to regulate campaigns and referendums.

“Right now it just says that the BOE can regulate election campaigns, but it doesn’t say anything about a referendum, and that is what really made this an issue,” Horowitz said.

The group will also propose to clarify the student body president’s powers in campaigns.

They hope their actions will show the student body student government can work effectively.

But Mills said UCommons remains a reasonable proposal.

“Lots of little things make it a good idea,” Mills said. “Eight dollars isn’t a big deal.”

Contact the University Editor at university@dailytarheel.com.