Some students dissatisfied with wellness center vote
Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 10:22AM 
Several students voiced their opinions at the town hall meetings hosted by SGA. Photo by Tony Heath. Some students dissatisfied with wellness center vote
Anthony Pickett/Staff Writer
The wellness center referendum passed with an overwhelming 74% majority earlier this month, but some students are still unsatisfied with the results and the SGA’s “vote yes” campaign.
Braxton Harris, the SGA president, said that the SGA has been involved in the project for quite some time.
“Talks really began two years ago when several students said that there wasn’t much to do, so we supported the initiative,” he said.
Lakecia Harris, AUM’s Director of Student Life, said it was natural for the SGA to lead the “vote yes” campaign.
“[The SGA] is the official voice of the students, so they were most likely to lead the charge for the wellness center,” she said.
Some students, however, believed that the SGA’s sponsorship of the “vote yes” campaign left one side of the debate unrepresented.
“[The ‘vote yes’ campaign] made people aware, but at the same time I think it was really one-sided. It was like the 92 and 96 elections when MTV was doing ‘Rock the Vote.’ They were saying 'go out and vote, go vote,' but in the end it was only Clinton supporters,” said Franklin Thomas, a theatre major at AUM.
Thomas said he doesn’t support the referendum because he doesn’t think the building was worth the money, and he doesn’t want to pay for something he won’t be able to enjoy.
“It seems a little ridiculous to spend all this money to build this wellness center that is not going to be used. We have enough facilities, like the gym, that already go unused. Plus, I’m not going to be here when it's finished; I’ll be leaving when they are breaking ground,” he said.
Other students echoed these sentiments.
A graduate student, who chose to remain anonymous, wrote an email which was forwarded school wide by Lakecia Harris.
In the email he said that the country’s economic situation would invariably cause tuition increases, but AUM didn’t need to add additional burdens, such as the wellness center cost, to student budgets. He said that the wellness center wasn’t worth it and that there were cheaper ways to get fit.
“If you are a Freshman and this referendum passes, over your remaining time at AUM you will be forced to pay over $1,000 in additional fees. If you are wanting a less expensive way to keep yourself healthy, most of the commercial gyms in the Montgomery area, offer memberships for less than $20 per month. So if you joined a gym today, during your remaining time at AUM you would spend less than what you will spend if this referendum passes and you would be able to receive benefit [sic] from you spending today!” he wrote.
The email was a response from a controversial email Lakecia Harris had sent out the day prior, in which she encouraged students to vote yes.
The email was controversial because it prompted some students to believe that the administration was trying to influence student votes.
“There was a concern that administrators might be trying to get students to vote yes, but that wasn’t the case,” said Lakecia Harris.
Braxton agreed.
“I believe the email Lakecia sent was with good intentions. She was trying to let people know that there was time to vote and to encourage them to. By no means do I think she was trying to sway anyone. I regret that … students might think that,” he said.
Franklin, however, disagreed.
“The campus is endorsing the wellness center, so [the email] makes the whole thing seem a little unfair.”
He said in the end the email was a non-issue.
“I don’t think it should have been addressed at all [in the email], but it didn’t hurt anyone. There was no harm,” he said.
Braxton said that students can still contribute suggestions for the wellness center.
“If there are any ideas or suggestions that students feel should be included in the wellness center plan, then contact me,” he said.
Reader Comments (6)
Again, as an Alumni, I was receiving calls months ago asking to donate money for projects like the Welfare center. However, months later the chancellor stated in his letter to aumnibus the donation campaign would began AFTER students voted to approve the center. How can you ask for money for something that has not been approved. As $100,000 in left over student activity fee funds was given to the SGA and CAB to improve campus life, someone should have questioned why the school was asking for a $160 increase per semester when funds were given out like candy. You have triple digit excesses that are not getting used, you are already soliciting alumni for donations and you raise the fee by how much? This idea has ballooned into a circus. Notice how the last SGA President asked for a $50 fee increase to cover the wellness center (http://www.aum.edu/uploadedFiles/Faculty_and_Staff/Faculty_Senate/February%202008.pdf) If the SGA is the "official voice of Student," then the Aumnibus MUST BE the honest voice for student
I completely agree with the previous comment. I looked at my email again from Lakecia Harris and without a doubt she it strongly encouraged us to vote yes. The subject to the email was "Vote Yes!". I think it is ridiculous that the students who will be paying for it will not have the chance to use the facilities. I understand that they can still join as alumni, but not everyone will still live in the Montgomery area. The fact that months before it was voted on they were asking for funds from alumni, shows their strong support. Along with the rising cost of tuition & this.... charade the administration is pulling, it really makes me uncomfortable with my future with this school. I do not feel like this is fair for the students. The majority of people who are educated about the Wellness center & actually take the time to log on to Webster & vote will be the students who vote for it. Many people I knew were easily & immaturely persuaded by the pizza party & such things that the the "Vote Yes" team put on. I do not think people were properly educated on the pros & cons of the wellness center.
not to mention the signs posted in front of the bookstore that day, with language clearly persuading students to vote yes. I wish I could say I was surprised. Unfortunately, this IS AUM's- along with academia in general's- idea of democracy. I can't remember ever voting in an election in which only one candidate was able to campaign. What a shame.
I feel that all of those in opposition should also be able to go before the Board of Trustees or the Alumni to express other student's opinions. I remember that the entire point of this so called election was to get the student body's overall opinion and for the SGA to present that the Board. However, I remember for weeks asking myself, "What am I voting yes for?" No one would ever explain it until the day before the election. And if we were all meant to "vote yes" in the first place, then why even conduct a vote? Why did the SGA not just go before the board and say that the Wellness Center is in the best interest of the students, because then they knew that there would be an uproar over the fact of how high our student activity fees will go up.
I don't mind if the fees go up slightly to help pay for events and activities that I can actually participate in each semester, but not for a facility to be constructed long after I graduate. I have to also ask this: with the state of our current economy, could the $10 million dollars not be spent on something more useful to the school? Why not upgrade the facilities we already have? Last time I check, AUM was not winning any architecture awards for beauty.
And last I wish to make this point clear: the Wellness Center will go over budget and time. In the long run, the student activity fees will have to be increased further to help compensate, and the building will likely not open for six to twelve months off schedule. Look how long it took to get the North Commons built. And wasn't it almost two years past its scheduled open date? I may be off with my numbers, but I remember that it went months and months over the schedule time frame.
a star is born?
A large majority of students voted yes. I agree campaigning was one-sided, but other parties could have done the same during the 'vote yes' campaigning. Plus I believe it shouldn't be a selfish issue. It should be about improving the school in the long-run. I don't mind the additional cost per semester, because I know its about improvement towards AUM. Plus the master plan proposal will be fixing up the current buildings as well as the layout of the campus.