Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (July 18, 1973)
m 0| OKIXiOY g 1 daily emerald *< From New Jersey to you— see page 6 Vol. 75, No. 11 Wednesday , July 18, 1873 mmmm w mmmmmr- ■ mimmm Photo by Calvin Jones These hot sunny days seem just right for a shady canoe trip down the Ol’ Millrace — if you don’t mind a little pollution. Despite the less than-pristine waters, more Eugeneans can be expected by the cool stream as weathermen predict continuing rainless days with tem peratures in the 80s and 90s. Horton charged with premature campaign ByCLAYEALS Of the Emerald The 1970 Democratic candidate for Oregon’s Fourth District Congressional seat, Jim Weaver, Tuesday charged Lane County District Attorney Pat Horton of campaigning for the 1974 seat while in office. Weaver said in a Eugene press conference that he has “been in formed that Horton plans to run...from a number of sources. Specifically, I have been told by one of his assistants, Spence Alpert, that he is almost certain he will run.” Weaver said Horton’s recent statements on pornography, gam bling and obscenity amount to “campaign press releases in his gearing up for Congress,” although Horton has “put his foot in his mouth a few times.” Contacted after the press conference, Horton laughed at Weaver’s charge, saying he is “flattered...I’m aware of the speculation among the news media that I may be running, and I think it’s vitally im portant that some new young Democrats emerge to replace the old warhorses, “But, my entire effort at this point is directed toward im plementing new and viable programs in Lane County. Weaver’s comment is premature at this point.” Horton’s assistant, Alpert, said Tuesday that he did not tell Weaver that Horton was planning on running for the 1974 seat. “What I told Weaver,” Alpert said, “was all from my own perspective, my own knowledge. I told him that I felt that Pat should run.” If Horton decides to run for the seat, Weaver said in the press conference that he too will run, unless another Democrat he supports also decides to run. “There have been some names bandied about — Robert Straub, Jason Boe, A1 Densmore,” Weaver said, adding that he did not wish to support any of them for the 1974 seat at this time. “I just don’t believe that someone as fresh as the newly elected District Attorney should be running for office,” he said. The person who is the Democratic candidate will have to be “well versed” in lumber industry economics, and Horton, a registered Democrat, doesn’t fill that bill, he said. Weaver said he lamented that Horton “considers his job as a mere stepping stone to higher office, and I wish he would just do the job we told him to do when he was elected.” Budget causes controversy An administrative hassle-over the funding of the University’s athletic department is turning into a commentary on the roles of student government and the administration. Reacting to charges of fiscal irresponsiblity made by ASUO President Greg Leo, Incidental Fee Committee chairman Randy Shilts says that $135,000 was budgeted by his group for the athletic program and is all the money they should receive for the coming year. Last year, says Shilts, the Athletic department was budgeted $135,000 but was given an additional $22,000 to make up for under-realized ticket sales. By JAMES RUSSELL Of the Emerald This year, Shilts comments, “They’re going to get their $135,000 but we’re no longer gang to pay for tickets they don’t sell. If they don’t sell their tickets it’s their problem. That’s the way it should be,” says Shilts. Previously, the amount of under-realized sales were paid for out of an executive buffer fund held by Johnson Hall and the administration. Leo originally recommended a $150,000 allocation so that no money would have to be removed from this pool of resources. If the $135,000 IFC recommendation is approved and under-realized ticket sales happen again, the money will again have to be made up out of this ASUO fund. University guidelines, Leo says, limit the amount of money that can be cut from any traditionally funded program to a 10 per cent reduction the first two years and then none the third year. “The IFC budget is in direct violation to these guidelines,” Leo said late last week. “The fee committee not only violates University guidelines set down several years ago,” said Leo, “but they will not accept the responsibility that this student organization must face.” Dealing with charges of irresponsibility by the IFC, Shilts says the committee has proved to be “one of the most responsive, responsible bodies in student government.” He cites the Day Care con troversy, where his committee overrode Leo’s plan to do away with University funding of all Day Care centers. Shilts charges, “Greg Leo is working very strenuously to undermine the structure of the student government. Leo is acting like a spoiled child, trying to persuade President Clark to override the decisions of the duly elected representatives of this student government.” Shilts contends that he, his committee and their budget is in full accordance with the constitution of the ASUO. “By practically inviting the President to change the budget,” says Shilts, “Greg Leo is setting a very serious and very immature precedent.” Shilts accuses Leo of inciting President Clark to alter the budget, of interfering with ASUO business, and of trying to match the budget with the “personal tastes of Greg Leo.” Shilts adds, “if President Clark does veto the budget he will be making student government an entire sham with the help and advice of the ASUO President. If the ASUO President wants to destroy the ASUO, he is doing a very good job trying.” President Clark has not yet been given the budget to review, evaluate or disapprove. Vice president for Administration and Finance Ray Hawk sums up his position, and that of the recommendation he will make to Clark this way: “Three years ago, the University entered into an agreement with the ASUO concerning the fun ding of traditional programs by incidental fees. These guidelines were reviewed by the state board and eventually approved.” Hawk continues, “In my view, the recom mendations of the incidental fee committee makes this the third year the athletic department has been asked to take a 10 per cent cut. It will be my recommendation to the President that this is in violation of the incidental fee guidelines and I will be recommending to him that the athletic depart ment be funded at the $150,000 level,” says Hawk. The guidelines stated earlier by Leo are correct, according to Hawk. Commenting on the controversy, Leo says, “President Clark can either approve or veto this budget. I am not trying to openly persuade President Clark to make any decision I feel strongly for. President Clark is a big boy and can make up his mind on his own.” Hawk says the University budget should be returned to Clark by the State Board over the weekend. Clark can then begin deliberation on the IFC budget by the first of next week. He speculates Clark should be finished the week after that. Button-down cans wave of future “The push-button age has come to cans.” So begins a leaflet that the American Can Company has put out to advertize the new “Button Down end,” their solution to the restriction against flip top cans passed in Oregon’s “bottle bill.” After flip-top cans were banned, the canning business felt it had reached a dead end. “No one wants to go back to the flat-top can,” a spokesman from one company said. “1116 canning business is terrible.” What they were afraid of, a spokesman from another company explained, was not just the abolishment of the flip-top cans, but the addition of the five-cent deposit. The combination, he said, was deadly. A local Coca-Cola plant shut down its canning operation after the passage of the bottle bill. Only recently have they begun to can again, and only on a small scale. They have been doing some canning for Fred Meyer, Fred Meyer’s own brand, using the old-style flat-top can. They are doing, they think, surprisingly well. Possibly, they said, because the deposit on the bottle is up to ten cents now. But with the Button Down end, Oregonians will once more have the convenience to which they are accustomed. It is not a new can, just a new end to a can, with two holes; one for venting, one for pouring. You open them by pushing the “buttons.” “It’s convenient. It’s easy,” says the American Can Company in their leaflet. “One finger of one hand does the trick. The tab stays with the can.” Portland Coca Cola has been the first company to use the Button Down ends, and they have already been on the market for a little over two weeks. In two more weeks, they expect 100 percent of their cans to have the Button Down end.' It may well be that the Button Down end will come to dominate the nationwide scene as well. The American Can Company is moving towards full-scale production. And Sen. Mark Hatfield has recently introduced a bill into the U.S. Senate patterned after Oregon’s “bottle bill” that would ban the shipment and the sale of all non-returnable beverage containers and would ban all “flip-top” cans. Although the “bottle bill” has caused a great many difficulties for Oregon canning plants, Hat field believes the benefits far outweigh the detriments. By reusing bottles and returning cans, there is a decrease in energy required for making containers, a decrease in cost to the customer, and a decrease in litter. The Environmental Protection Agency says that “the beverage container portion of litter decreased by at least 49 percent between the winter of 1971 to 1972 and the winter of 1972 to 1973.
