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)