Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (June 20, 1973)
Structure change set for Co-op July 1 By SHAHRYAR AHMAD Of the Emerald The Executive Board of the University Co-operative Store met Tuesday over dinner to explore possible price changes and other ramifications of the changed status of the store. The store has been a cooperative (with patronage refund on co-op cash register receipts), but has received membership approval to change its status to a non-profit corporation beginning July 1. The executive board is com prised of four members of the board of directors who plan on being in the Eugene area over the summer. Attending the meeting were executive board members Marie Hartman, Bemd Kuen necke, Jim Mooney and Carol Reich, store manager Gerald Henson, assistant manager Jim Williams, and legal counsel Jim Harrang. Andy Gill, a new member of the board of directors, was also present. A main concern of the mem bers was price adjustments with the store’s new corporate status. Henson and Williams presented a report expressing the management’s point of view that “across the board” price reductions at the store are not economically feasible. The report, “based on past experiences” predicted an ‘‘estimated profit potential somewhere between 4.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent” ... for the next year or two for the store. It was the general consensus of the executive board and the management that “across the board” price reductions would be unfeasible. Gill and the managers also felt that reduc tions in textbook prices would be unwise. Instead, they would like to look into “specific item mark down.” The managers’ report mentioned that “that 4 or 5 per cent cuts are relatively ineffective as far as impressing our student customers. Three- or five-day promotions would stimulate traffic and possibly promote more impulse buying.” Also, the report asked that the board consider promotional mark-down for certain items for certain weeks. Specific decisions on the ramifications of the changed , status on the co-op will take place over the summer when the executive board meets from time to time. •X .v* I & I XZ?e coming of age of the University ? 1 1 1 When a record falls, there’s usually a lot of fanfare and publicity and the heroes’ names are recorded for posterity right? Well, not always. This spring, quietly and without much fanfare, the EMU and the Law School took another “giant step for mankind’’ and broke the 97-year-old tradition prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages on campus. They had a beer party. Dick Reynolds, EMU director, said that the occas on, “was good warm spring weather and a desire to give it a try to see how it would work. We were willing to give it a try because we were wondering the same thing.” There were actually two parties, the first on May 18 and the second a week later, on May 25. Pretzels, popcorn and 155 gallons of beer were sold at each party. The law students approached the EMU, and the EMU got clearance through the University and the State Board office to apply to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission for a tem porary liquor license. The EMU sold the beer to the law students by the glass, and identification had to be checked. Some business graduate students applied last fall, Reynolds said, but conditions weren’t right and “there wasn’t enough time.” The fact that all the law students were over 21 was definitely a favorable consideration. Also, the beer had to be distributed in a “discreet area where the laws of dispensing and regulating the ill use of alcoholic beverages could be adhered to,” Reynolds said. The law school lounge and commons fit those specifications. :•! “We had a good time,” Reynolds said, “and the reaction g from the University and the community has been favorable. The || University has finally come of age.” :¥ 1 I 1 I Photo by Steve Twedt ..... r-noio oy 3Teve Twedl LOOKS like a rather one-sided match-up, doesn’t it? Actually, the player with the ball is Corky caihoun, a professional basketball player for the Phoenix Suns team who is assisting in a basketball f,“Vc.J|e,"g he‘d thls week at Mac Court. The clinic, under the direction of Dick Harter head oasketbaII coach, has been teaching boys from all over the state how to improve their skills and enjoy playing. For additional information see the sports page. Budget battles between IFC and Leo continue The Incidental Fee Committee (IFC) met Friday of dead week and overrode ASUO president Greg Leo’s budget vetoes with the exception of the veto for the Gay People’s Alliance. That program lost $100 of their original request. All other program budgets were returned intact to Leo. The IFC also submitted their own operating budget to Leo during finals week. Leo vetoed the budget because he felt the salary allocation for the IFC members was too much. “They voted themselves $90-a-month salaries for 12 months and a $105-a-month salary for their chairer,” he said. One of the fee committee’s major goals was cutting down on the number of salaried ASUO personnel, Leo pointed out. Randy Shilts, chairer of the IFC, said, “We’ll have a meeting sometime this week to try to override the IFC budget vote. The IFC needs a budget to operate its office and a reserve fund so that if agencies need extra money they can come and get it from us.” Leo told the Emerald he will present the budget he received from the IFC to President Robert Clark for approval, but “I’m considering offering a minority report on three budget areas, the Athletic Department (AD) the EMU and IFC (if his veto is overridden).” Leo objects to the IFC’s EMU budget because of the Incidental Fee Committee cuts to specific budget items. In a traditional major budget activity like EMU the determination of individual line items within the total in-budget request should not be dictated by the fee committee, he said. Leo said that program administration is not a function of the IFC. Shilts contended that “We wanted to analyze where corners could be cut, and that was the only way to do it.” The conflict over the AD budget is more com plicated. The ASUO has had a contract with the AD whereby if actual student ticket sales were less than projected student ticket sales, the ASUO con tingency fund made up the difference, above and beyond the AD allocation in the Incidental Fee budget. Leo contends that the ASUO should give the AD $150,000 ($15,000 more than the IFC recom mendation), and secure a contract releasing the ASUO from liability for unsold tickets because it would save the students money in the long run. Shilts says that the IFC recommendation is to renegotiate the AD contract, eliminating the ticket subsidy, but limiting the total AD allocation to $135,000. If these differences are not resolved between Leo and the IFC, and two reports are submitted to Clark, an “executive report” and “the IFC budget,” Johnson hall would be put in a position of deciding which of the recommendations to follow. Leo said he is still evaluating the budget and wants to discuss if further with the IFC.
