---Comm entory
GPA programs deserve funding
By JERRY HARRIS
This commentary is a response to the
letter by Linden and Dwight Jeffers.
Homer Wells, and Gerald Arndt (May
23). concerning the Gay People’s
Alliance budget of $1,280 approved by
the Incidental Fee Committee.
The writers say that they “have not
seen one program or service that the
GPA can offer that will benefit anyone
except their social group." If they
haven't seen, they sure haven’t been
looking very hard. Our programs,
several of which have been reported in
the Emerald periodically, include:
(D Educational functions. GPA
panels have spoken to sociology,
psychology. CSPA, health and other
classes about the dimensions of life for
gay people in American society,
problems they face in confronting
discrimination, myths and constant
•■put downs,” the goals of the gay
liberation movement, etc. Such panels
benefit students who at least oc
casionally have had homosexual
feelings but have never heard the issue
spoken about in an open, positive, non
threatening discussion
(21 Political functions. GPA has been
working for legislation to ban
discrimination on the basis of "sexual
orientation.” This work has been on
both the city and state levels. Such
legislation would provide legal
protection, and psychological relief, for
thousands of homosexuals in the state
who live with the constant fear of losing
their jobs or homes if their personal
•’secret” is found out by an employer or
landlord. Homosexuals on and off
campus, many of whom show no open
interest in GPA, will benefit when these
efforts finally prove successful. And
these homosexuals. I would remind
straight students who are less than
supportive, may include some of your
own friends, roommates, siblings, co
workers and acquaintances.
(3) Speakers, movies, and dances.
Our budget provides very little for such
activities; we’ll have to get funding
from the Cultural Forum to sponsor
more of these events. Speakers, like
panels, perform an educational func
tion for all students. GPA arranged for
Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon (co
authors of the book Lesbian-Woman) to
speak on campus on April 2. Hiey were
the first open homosexuals who have
ever spoken to a U of 0 audience. Given
that the University is 100 years old, it’s
hard to believe that the topic has been
avoided for so long. It’s about time we
begin discussing the issue — for
everybody's sake
Gay people have a legitimate right in
asking for gay dances. W’e have no
intention of excluding “straight”
people from them. In fact, if more
straight people would dance, talk and
socialize with gay people, a lot of the
myths and stereotypes that they believe
would break down. Presently, if two
men or two women dance together
during an EMU dance, they get stared
at. are the target of derogatory com
ments, etc. If straight people can feel
relaxed at dances held amost even.
week, then gay people should be able to
feel similarly relaxed at least once or
twice a term. Thus we are justified in
wanting dances geared to the gay
community.
Most movies presently shown on
campus are oppressive to gay people.
They either portray only hetereosexual
relationships, as though assuming
homosexuals don’t exist, or else the few
movies that deal with homosexuality at
all portray it in a negative or distorted
way. (Sunday Bloody Sunday, shown
this winter, was a rare exception to this
pattern.) Both to educate audiences
about the variety of lifestyles of gay
people and to break down myths and
stereotypes, as well as simply to
provide movies which gay people can
relate to, it is imperative that — at least
occasionally — movies be presented
which relate to homosexual life more
positively.
The writers of the letter say that they
“hate to see such a large percentage of
our fees to support a cause (they) do not
believe in.” $1,280. out of a total budget
approaching $1,000,000. is hardly a
large percentage. But if it does bother
these individuals, fine! Only 1 would
hope that, if they won’t finance GPA,
they’ll likewise agree to give me back
the money I pay for the athletics
department ($150,000 total budget
allotment) and for the ASUO executives
(we give them $46,000). For these ex
penditures rarely, if ever, serve me.
The fact is that each GPA member pays
$57 a year in incidental fees. If we can’t
get anything back in the form of fun
ding of activities we want and need,
then give the 70 or 80 of us who are
regular GPA members (plus the
hundreds who come occasionally
during the course of the year) our
money back. We would have a hell of a
lot more money to work with than the
$1,280 we will be receiving.
The basic argument of the four who
wrote the letter is that the IFC — and,
by implication, Randy — is placing Day
Care lower in priority than GPA. The
fact is that Randy has been the most
vocal member of the IFC committee in
supporting incidental fee funding for
Day Care. It so happens that he is the
only IFC member to vote for Day Care
funding every time the issue has been
voted upon It is Jeff Jefferson, who
supports the 11 per cent increase in the
already huge athletic department
allocation, who is against funding Day
Care.
I might note that Randy and I were
both at Monday's sit-in demonstration,
sponsored by Day Care workers,
parents, children, and supporters, to
convince the new ASUO executives to
support Day Care funding. I wonder if
the four who wrote the letter attacking
GPA were at this demonstration — or if
they were too busy writing their letter
to spend their time learning the facts of
the situation and supporting their cause
more constructively
Note: Mr. Harris is a graduate in
Sociology and a member of the Gay
People's Alliance.
Proposed Co-op change: high-gloss rip-off?
By Andy Gill
Before the members of the University
erf Oregon Cooperative Store (Co-op) is
a proposal which, if passed, would
change the Co-op to a non-profit cor
poration The purpose of this article is
to detail the implications of the
proposals and outline the effects of the
change.
How the Co-op is Organized
Presently, each student or faculty
member of the University of Oregon is
eligible to join the Co-op. The Co-op’s
membership procedure is a simple one.
On paying a fifty-cent membership fee,
a person becomes eligible to receive a
rebate at the end otf the year. All the
member need do is save the sales
receipts and turn them in to the Co-op
before June 30, erf each year. When the
amount of “profit” is determined the
percent rebate which can be paid is
figured and then checks are mailed to
each member reflecting the percent of
his purchase. In recent years the
percent rebate has been about six
percent erf the purchase price. Some of
you may remember a few years ago
when the rebates were as high as ten
percent However, with the increased
casts of operation, greater competition,
and the failure of the University to
adopt a pre-registration plan, this
decrease is understandable. Yet, our
Co-op and the one at Oregon State
University are the only two on the west
coast which pay a rebate.
The Co-op is managed by a ten
member board of directors composed
of eight students and two faculty
members. The board is responsible for
the successful operation of the Co-op,
but hires a full-time manager to help
with management. If you don’t like
store policies then you should complain
to the board of directors and not the
manager.
The Proposed Changes
The central proposed change to the
Co-op is a simple one Instead of having
a cooperative with a membership
requirement and rebates, the co-op
would be dissolved and reformed as a
non-profit corporation. In effect, some
prices would be lowered, but there
would be no year-end rebate.
Problems With the Change
1. A few years ago, an astute board of
directors successfully pursued federal
tax exemption for the Co-op. While the
application process was both lengthy
and expensive — over $100,000.00 in
back taxes was refunded to the Co-op.
And currently the Co-op saves over
$30,000.00 per year in federal tax. If the
Co-op changes to a non-profit cor
poration most probably the current tax
exemption will be lost. In order to
possibly regain the tax exempt status
the lengthy and costly application
process must be repeated. However, if
the current proposal were forestalled
until an opinion could be obtained from
the Internal Revenue Service con
cerning the proposed corporation,
several thousand dollars might be
saved.
In addition, the proposed change has
already forced tlie Co-op to abandon a
state court tax suit involving state tax
exemption for the Co-op. And, of course
money has already been spent to pay
legal fees for this suit.
2. While having good intentions, the
current board of directors has proposed
these changes at the wrong time. First,
the membership was not consulted with
the plan for the proposed change.
Second, the official voting meeting is to
be held June 6,1973, during Spring term
finals week Obviously, those few
students remaining that day will be pre
occupied with finals Third, the letter
which accompanied the ballot clearly
avoided discussing any of the negative
aspects of the change. Fourth, little
attempt has been made to publicize the
change. Fifth, NO STUDY HAS BEEN
CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE PROPOSED PLAN
IS EVEN FEASIBLE
In short, it appears the current board
is railroading this proposal through
without fully explaining its
ramifications to the members.
3. If these proposals are passed a new
set of by-laws must be written. Under
this proposal the board of directors will
have the sole authority to write the new
by-laws. The Oregon laws relating to
non-profit corporations are found in
Chapter sixty-one of the Oregon
Revised Statutes. The statutes provide
substantial leeway in many areas in
cluding the powers and duties of the
directors and the number of directors.
IT IS CLEARLY UNETHICAL FOR A
BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO WRITE
ITS OWN BY-LAWS. This one fact by
itself is adequate reason to defeat the
proposed changes. The logical and fair
alternative is to submit the by-law for
voter approval.
4. As was mentioned in the letter
accompanying the ballot, the income
from the federal tax exemption, and the
unclaimed rebate, accrues at about
$50,000.00 per year. Currently this
money from recent years is being held
in bank accounts. The question comes
how can this money be used to benefit
the Co-op’s members.
In any business such as the Co-op, the
cost of operation (overhead) combined
with the wholesale price of the item will
determine the cost of that item, in mo6t
cases. Because of the federal tax
exemption, unclaimed rebates can not
be directly refunded. However, the Co
op has a $400,000.00 long-term mort
gage. Much of the money not rebated
to members could be used to reduce the
mortgage payments which would in
turn lower the overhead which would in
turn facilitate the lowering of prices.
Conclusion: How to Vote
If you trust the board of directors
enough to allow it to determine its own
by-laws; are willing to do away with the
Co-op's federal tax exemption; would
rather gamble with the possibility of
having lower prices on a few items in
exchange for no year-end rebate, then
you should vote “yes” on the proposed
change.
If however, you like the present
rebate system; like the $30,000.00 per
year federal tax exemption; believe, as
a member, you should have a say in
what the board of directors does; would
rather consider the proposed changes
openly and in more detail next fall, then
you should vote “no.”
Change is often necessary. But is it
worth it to HASTILY change in hopes of
achieving something better when there
is no study showing there will be an
improvement, and, in fact where there
would be a distinct possibility of a loss
of services. I suppose the question is,
are you as a member willing to risk
losing a store which although not
perfect provides a valuable and
necessary service on the mere con
jecture that what will result MIGHT be
an improvement?
If you are confused as to how you
should vote, I urge you to attend a
special meeting which is to be held June
1, 1973 at 12:30 p.m. in Fenton Hall on
the University campus.
Note: Law student Andy Gill is a
member-elect (effective June 8) of the
Co-op Board of Directors.