f Editorials
Jerry Frei cared too much
Jerry Frei had a tragic flaw-he cared
too much.
In these days of semi-professional,
make-a-buck college athletics, he cared
about his players as individuals. He also
cared about his own image. It was the latter
worry that forced him to resign as head
football coach.
He didn’t quit because he wasn’t a good
coach or because he couldn’t get along with
his players; he quit because outside
pressures--the pressures of University
alumni and the media-had cast him in the
role of “loser.” And he couldn’t go on leading
the team in that image.
Frei couldn’t have been expected to do
otherwise in the situation.
But other persons could have prevented
the situation from taking control of the
coach. Outside pressure should not be
allowed to control University programs
expecially when the pressure forces a
decision which is contrary to the best in
terests of that program, the University and
its students.
ASUO President Iain More was right
when he said there are only two ways to
prevent these pressures from becoming all
powerful. You either change the structure
and goals of the system or have an Athletic
Director who supports his staff to the hilt
when he knows they are right.
More says the University has not arrived
at either point yet. He’s right.
The University’s Athletic Director
should support his staff. If Norv Ritchey is
not willing to support the members of his
staff, to do battle with the “outside
agitators,” then he should follow Frei’s lead
and resign. The University has no room for
an Athletic Director who buckles under to
outside pressure.
More has also vowed that the ASUO will
be “closely involved with the selection of a
successor” as head football coach. The ASUO
President said “Jerry Frei’s critics can rest
assured that our interests are in finding
someone who reflects as closely as possible
(Frei’s) philosophy.”
It’s good More feels that way.
Someone has to watch out for student
interests.
Firm structure needed
Gov. McCall has cited the passage of the
cigarette tax as a “beach head” in reforming
Oregon’s tax system. Let’s hope he and other
political leaders around the state are willing
to make a Patton-like spearhead attack to
win the tax war.
As it stands now Oregon’s tax structure
is a patchwork system held together by the
thin thread of the cigarette tax. Past efforts
to establish a better system of taxation have
been voted down by the citizens of the state
time and again. If this election didn’t do it
then something must be done to show the
people of the state that things can’t continue
in this way.
How much longer can this state balance
on the edge of disaster? Cuts, such as the
ones being made this year, have a harder
effect than just inconveniencing people for a
short time. In a few years, when universities
and state departments want to reinstitute cut
programs it will be just that much more
expensive and difficult to get the people who
make up the programs to come here. Who
would want to teach at a university or work
for a department that might be moving your
desk out any day?
What is needed is a sound, rational and
fair tax system that can provide some sort of
security as well as a base to build on.
Commentary
John Koford
New plans
i
for
!
the senate
John Koford is a former ASUO senator and
a senior in philosophy.
Upon reading the Emerald Article on
reapportionment, “Mixed Fruit and
Democracy Square Off In Senate Battle,”
I felt it was my duty to clarify some errors.
I have served on the Governing Com
mittee for two years now. The Governing
Committee and not this special task force
committee is charged with the duties of
apportionment. The Governing Committee
also has special duties and responsibilities
where any constitutional change of this
magnitude is concerned. Last winter term
the Governing Committee studied ten
different plans of apportionment carefully.
It was decided after looking into each
plan’s practical applicability and value,
that our present plan of apportionment
offers the most democratic avenue for all
interests to supply involvement into the
A.S.U.O. senate. We felt that the
responsibility for each senator to com
municate with his constituency under any
plan would boil down to a matter of in
dividual responsibility. If is very in
teresting to note that a plan similar to Mr.
Loveys plan was in use up to winter term
1968. The present plan was adopted to
allow representation from more special
interest groups.
On Nov. 18, Stephanie Larsen appointed
a committee to look into irregularities in
the elections, not reapportionment. But
from the very first meeting of this special
task force committee Mr. Loveys and Mr.
Salmony announced that the purpose of the
committee was to draft a new system
apportionment as soon as passible. The
questions of improvement of the present
system and whether reapportionment was
necessary were never taken up. The draft
Mr. Loveys will present as the com
mittee’s recommendation is in fact the
recommendation of Linda Duke, Nancy
Harowitz, and Fred Loveys, three
members of a 13 member committee. This
draft closely resembles Mr. Loveys
original plan with minor modifications.
A.S.U.O. Vice President Larry Salmony
'i
JaS&tcn&erj&zxf
. . AND A LEFT. AND A RIGHT. AND ANOTHER
LEFT. AND A RIGHT JAB. AND A LEFT . .
stated that he would have the committee
meet everyday if necessary until a new
plan of apportionment was adopted. He
stated that only under rush and in
timidation from the executive could a new
plan be produced. Again I must state all of
this occured without any discussion of
whether reapportionment was necessary.
The committee met with anywhere from
three to five members attending out of
thirteen members on the committee.
Notices of the next meetings didn’t appear
in the paper for they were announced at
the previous meeting and often the
meetings were called for so soon that it
would have been impossible to get an
announcement in the Campus Briefs
section of the Emerald. Though it will be
denied none of the members of the com
mittee I talked to were ever called by
phone when three or four days occured
before the next meeting. Fred Loveys,
Nancy Harowitz (not an actual member of
the committee), and Linda Duke worked
with Fred to draft his plan. David Jen
nings, John Stewart and myself opposed
the plan from the beginning. Our chairman
Fred Loveys has less than one year of
experience in the A.S.U.O. senate, and one
term’s experience as head of the Govern
ing Committee. Prior to his appointment
to be head of the Governing Committee he
had had no experience in this area. Both
Nancy and Linda have had less than five
weeks experience in the A.S.U.O. Nancy
transfered to Oregon this fall and has
experienced only one senate election.
The opposition is composed of David
Jennings, John Stewart, and myself. We
all have had two years of experience in the
A.S.U.O. Plus John and myself have
served regularly on the Governing
Committee.
What it all boils down to is that those
with experience greater than one year
oppose the plan while those with ex
perience ranging from four weeks to ten
months in A.S.U.O. Governing support the
plan. It should finally be stressed that the
committee has never met with a quorum
and has never been recognized by the
A S.U.O. senate
1 hope the Emerald now has a clearer
idea of the issues and where the fifth
regular member of the task force com
mittee stands.