FSO tries to clear
constitutional faults
By KYLE JOHNSON
of the Emerald
Foreign students will vote on a
proposed new Foreign Student
Organization (FSO) constitution
during spring term registration
that attempts to clear up many of
the faults in the present FSO
constitution.
The FSO executive board
finished more than two months of
deliberations on the proposed
constitution March 1. The con
stitution was drafted by several
FSO members, including ASUO
Vice President Fred Loveys,
after a December meeting of
foreign students voted a “lack of
confidence” in former FSO
President Davoud Davoudi and
former FSO Vice President Abid
Sheriff.
Loveys had declared in late
October Davoudi’s and Sheriff’s
election invalid because of a
clause in the present constitution
requiring a quorum of 25 per cent
of all FSO members at general
assembly meetings. Loveys had
been notified by foreign student
adviser Larry Pittman that the
election had been invalid, as had
been the two previous FSO
general elections.
The new constitution reduces
the quorum to 10 per cent.
The new constitution will also
change the election procedure.
The old constitution prescribed
certain procedures for FSO
Elections, but the new con
titution states “all matters
pertaining to the elections” shall
be left to a three-person com
mittee of the FSO Vice-President
and representative from the
foreign student office and ASUO
Elections Board.
Like the former ASUO Senate,
however, the FSO executive
council (presently executive
board) will “have the authority to
approve or amend the rules,
dates, procedures, to validate the
results and adjudicate on
alleged violations of these rules
and procedures.’’
The new constitution contains
procedures for impeachment
recall, and voies of confidence.
| Impeachment of an FSO officer
Kinder the new constitution will
require a two-thirds vote of the
FSO general assembly. In a vote
of confidence an official may be
removed by the assembly if “a
majority of votes cast’’ favor
removal, provided the Executive
Council recommends the vote be
taken.
Besides the ratification vote
during spring term registration,
foreign students will decide two
sections in the new constitution
that executive board members
could not agree on.
The first issue is whether to
allow students with immigrant
visas to participate in FSO. At a
January board meeting,
executive board chairer Ranjan
Ray said the Indian student
organization would not have been
able to conduct its fall cultural
program without the assistance
of these students.
Esawey Amashe also favored
the inclusion of foreign students
with immigrant visas, but felt the
immigrant student was “undo*
different pressures.” He said
they did not have to worry about
applying for a new visa each year
and did not have to pay
nonresident tuition.
Under the present constitution,
“all foreign students registered
at the Foreign Student Office”
are eligible for membership.
The second section foreign
students voters will decide is the
membership of the executive
council. Under the present
constitution the three FSO
executive officers and one
representative from each of the
foreign student organizations
comprise the executive board.
The executive board favored a
similar section for the new
constitution but it failed to
receive approval from three
fourths of the board members.
The board had earlier decided to
make all decisions about the new
Constitution have a three
fourths vote.
An alternate section to have the
council include “one represen
tative for each 100 or fewer
students” from each organization
“with one additional represen
tative up to two representatives
including the elected executive
officers” of the FSO was ap
proved for submission to the vote
of foreign students.
Executive board members
hope foreign students will ap
prove the proposed constitution
and hope it will prevent the
problems of the last six months
from occurring again.
For student on board
Final push begins
By NAN HENDERSON
of the Emerald
SALEM (Special) — For the
twenty or so university students
who have been lobbying for
student interests in the
legislature, a Monday night
hearing before the House
Education Committee signified
the beginning of a final push to
get their “top priority”
legislation through the
legislature.
The hearing — on a bill that
would place three students on the
State Board of Higher Education
(HB 2147) — also climaxed
months of intensive preparation
by the students involving reams:
of paper, numerous Salem
strategy sessions and repeated
discussions with legislators.
The students have been aided
in their efforts during this
legislative session by Rep.
Gordon Macpherson (R
Waldport), a chief opponent of
similar legislation introduced
last session.
He was the first of eight per
sons who testified in favor of HB
2147.
Only me person, State Board
member Elizabeth Johnson,
testified in opposition to the bill
during the three-hour hearing.
Macpherson told the com
mittee that he doesn’t support
placing three students on the
State Board, but does support
“the general concept of student
representation.”
The major argument against
representation, he observed, is
that a student would be a “con
stituent member” of the Board
and that if a student was placed
on the Board a faculty member,
too, would deserve appointment.
Would you like a
Gurateed
for Spring Term? For a few hours of work per week
(10-15) on campus, we will guarantee you <depending
on your qualifications)
$200, $180 or $165 (plus bonuses)
Interested? Want more information?
See: Amy, Rainer, Howard or Ed
Footnotes: Room 15 in the Basement of the EMU.
"The comparison between
students and faculty is erroneous
because a contract relationship is
different from a consumer
relationship,” Macpherson said.
He pointed out that young
persons also represent over half
of the population in the United
States.
Two University students,
ASUO President Bill Wyatt and
University senior Jeff Johnson
also testified in favor of the
legislation.
Wyatt outlined the present
structure of the Board, ex
plaining the rationale for the nine
citizen members "who have been
selected to represent the people
in governing our public in
stitutions of higher education.
as major financial sup
porters, and as partial consumers
of education, the public does
indeed have an inherent right to
representation in this process,”
Wyatt said.
“There is, however, another
group, which is also a major
financial supporter of higher
education, and in fact is the
primary consumer of the
products of higher education,”
Wyatt continued, “yet strangely,
this group is not represented
directly in the decision-making
process. The group, of course, is
the student community.”
Wyatt, too, addressed the
argument of constituency Board
members saying, “The word
constituency implies some form
of accountability. It seems to me
' that student board members
would be adding, not a factor of
direct representation, but rather
the factor of perspective,” he
said
Johnson, representing the
Inter-Institutional Union of
Students, pointed out that the
State Board adopted a statement
in 1968 which says “students
should be involved in the for
mulation of institutional policies,
rules and regulations...ami added
“for a variety of reasons, we
believe HB 2147 is the best
possible way” to involve students
in the decision-making process.
Elizabeth Johnson, who
stressed she was not representing
the views of the Board, disagreed
that dating students on the
Board would facilitate more
student involvement.
ane told toe committee that
student input into the decisions
made by the Board is currently
solicited on the “lower levels” of
university advisory committees
and asked what further con
tribution students could make
into the decision-making process
by being on the Board.
She said that the passage of HB
2147 would open the Board to
constituent members, thereby
signaling a “marked change” in
the type of Board established in
Oregon.
Ms. Johnson also expressed
concern that students, “who have
a definite conflict of interest,”
could become “a very powerful
block mi the Board.”
She suggested, as alternatives
to HB 2147, the appointment of a
student attending a private
college in Oregon or a young
person not attending any college
or university.
Rep. Larry Perry (D-Eugene),
chairer of the committee, in
dicated at the conclusion of the
hearing that the bill will be acted
upon “very early” during a
committee work session.
U OF O CHARTER
PROGRAM
EUROPE 1973
ROUNDTRIP
CHARTER FLIGHTS TO EUROPE
lf73
June 12 - August 18
June 19 - July 30 .
June 21 • July 19
Aug. 13-Sept. 18
Portland-Brussels- Portland
$299.00
Portland-Brussels- Portland
$279.00
Portland-Brussels Portland
$265.00
Portland- Brussels- Portlam
$245.00
Additional information
and applications available at
International Education Center
Room 202 EMU x3721 sy
The dollar devaluation is corning!
...you can get sound eguipment and
guitars 10 per cent to 20 per cent less
than they will be next month after
the devaluation begins to be felt!!!
Avoid the higher prices - the Sun
Shop gives you a way out with the
great trade ins on your used
equipment and an easy lay away
plan. Save yourself a price hike at
the Sun Shop