Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 21, 1973)
Three amendments up for vote today Twenty-one candidates are competing for ten seats in the ASUO general election today and Thursday. It is three constitutional measures, however, which will offer the voter his biggest choice in the future course of ASUO government. ASUO Vice President Fred Loveys said that elections procedures for the general election will be identical to the primary elections held last week. Most polling places will be open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. both days. Students may vote by presenting a winter term fee card and a photo I.D. card at any one of eight polling places, including Carson and Hamilton Dorms, the EMU Terrace and Onyx Street en trance, the Co-op, the P.E. Building and intersections at 13th Avenue and Commonwealth and 13th Avenue and University Street. In the Residence Division, Carl Sell and Ivan Henke are running for the Fraternity seat; Raoul Lambert and Vicki Kirkpatrick are competing for the married student housing position; Gail Hoffnagle and Harley Leiber are running for the College Inn-Co ops seat, and Roger Wyatt, Lee Siegel, Gregg Wasson, Douglas Chambers, Tom Alderman and Joe Driggers are running for three off-campus positions. In the class division, Jim Davis and Patrick Bonner are vying for the Sophomore Class seat and Bert Bennehof and Peggy O’Farrell will run for the Senior seat. In the Academic Division, Randy Shilts, Tom Atkinson and Bill Dick seek the Liberal Arts seat and Mike Bonner and Liza Burgcyne compete for the Social Science position. Then there’s the amendments. Each one will be considered separately. The alternatives open to the voter range from complete abolishment of the ASUO Senate to retention of the present system. In a nutshell: — Amendment “A” would abolish the senate completely and set up an elected five-person board to distribute incidental fees. A committee would be established to work out a plan for student-faculty co-governance. A new form of government would have to be established within one year. mt Edna John, featured this week in Craftsmen’s Corner displays her ceramics in the Fishbowl from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. daily. John, who Photo by Peter Grant specializes in beadwork and small sculpture, will demonstrate her technique and offer her ware for sale through Friday. Tenure discussion begins By LINDA CAREY Of the Emerald PORTLAND (Special)-Several members of the State Board of Higher Education took a first step in examining the hefty subject of academic tenure Tuesday afternoon, by beginning discussion on a 59-page staff report on the topic. The report, prepared by Miles Romney, vice chancellor for academic affairs for the State System of Higher Education, was labelled as a “preliminary discussion document" for the board’s academic affairs committee. The report focused upon the excessive amount of tenure grants in state system institutions and the way in which the grants are issued. Romney listed several recommendations to the committee in his report, including: -that the role of the board, the chancellor, and the institutional executive involved in the selection of faculty for tenure grants be clarified. -that the search for faculty be assured as bang extensive, clearly defining the necessary qualifications. -that personal interviews of faculty be made before appointments are given. Institutional presidents, as well as represen tatives of state system-wide faculty groups, par ticipated in the discussion with the academic affairs committee. John Mosser, chairer of the board’s committee (Continued on Page 14) — Amendment “B” would give the senate the power to amend election rules instead of only being able to approve or disap prove them as is the case now. — Amendment “C” would require a student to identify his residence, class, academic major and ethnic status in future elections and would require him to vote for only the positions under his categories. — A fourth Amendment which would replace the present senate with a legislative body consisting of 24 at-large seats, and would form a committee to work on ^student-faculty government propositions, will not appear on the ballot due to its Tate in troduction in an emergency senate meeting Monday night. The measure missed the printer’s deadline and ASUO Vice President Fred Loveys and the elections board were not able to get the proposal on the ballot. The ballots will again be tabulated by computer Thursday night at the University Com puting Center. ‘A bit of culture . . . ’ Colorful, computerized election ballots didn’t seem to increase the voter turnout for the primary elections last week, so Fred Loveys, ASUO vice president, decided “to introduce a bit of culture to the elections” in order to draw potential voters to the polls. When the polls open at 9 a.m. today voters will be given ballots that bear three constitutional amendments and a list of senatorial candidates and their ballot slogans. So where does the culture come in? Loveys has smugly admitted that the ballot slogans are written in German. Guten Tag Director Christian Stehr assisted him in the cultural plot by providing accurate translations of each candidate’s slogan. Loveys hopes that this unprecedented move will double voter turnout this week. Loveys anticipates an onslaught of enraged senators and can didates, but he insists, “There is nothing unfair or improper about it. I have acted entirely within the rules.” , The amendments, the candidates’ names and the voting in structions are printed in English. Only the slogans are in German, and English translations of them are available at the polling areas. Loveys had a final comment for the Emerald Tuesday night. He said, “Ich bin fur eine ‘gebildete’ Wahl. Ich wurde meine stimme dem kandidaten geben, der seinen Wahlspruch fehlerfrei vortragen kann.” Roughly translated: “I want to have a ‘cultural’ election. I would give my vote to the candidate who could pronounce his slogan correctly.” He added, “Many of the slogans are obviously improved in the translation.” SEP directors cite liason bottleneck By CYNTHIA SPINELLI Of the Emerald Vemetta Caldwell, director of the University’s \Office of 'Student Educational programs, (SEP), came under fire Tuesday night from the directors of the five programs under SEP, at a meeting of the SEP advisory committee. The main complaint of the project directors, and of students on the committee and in the audience, was the lack of com munication between Caldwell’s office and the individual programs. The SEP office was intended to be a laison between the programs and the University administration, but the directors charged it has become a bottleneck for com munication. Caldwell said the draft proposal by Donald Rhoades, Dean of Student Administrative Services, to reorganize the supportive services programs, would have alleviated some of the communication problems, but that the directors had refused to accept the proposal. The proposal would create four full-time positions to help coordinate project evaluations, fiscal management and student counseling. It would also create four SEP programs, based on students’ ethnic background. Caldwell said the project directors do not want a central office to coordinate the programs, but want complete autonomy. She said that “total freedom is chaos,” and that conflicting authority would only cause further problems. Michael Burch, director of Project 75, said “We cannot work with her (Caldwell) at this point in time, because we can’t com municate with her.” He cited lack of communication between the SEP office and the project directors, saying, “We cannot ever get a direct response.” Ellen Hastay, director of the Native American Program, (Continued on Page 14)
