Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 26, 1973)
f-— I -Viewpoint Intolerable abuses commonplace' The necessity of recalling Leo and Barnett Note: Following received from the Eugene Coalition. It is a well known fact on campus that student government at the University of Oregon has evolved into a self perpetuating mess. The situation has been allowed to develop largely because of student apathy in recent years and has now grown to the point where intolerable abuses have become commonplace. The purpose of this discussion is to deal reasonably with the question of the Leo recall in light of failures of both the Emerald and Leo to address themselves to the substance of student dissatisfaction with the Leo administration. Clearly, the piecemeal consideration of random selected issues by the Emerald and the constant shifting and self-contradicting positions of Leo are less than the students deserve. At the outset it is necessary to clear up any misunderstanding regarding reasons for recall as defined by the ASUO constitution. Recall is governed by Article X. What is called for is a petition signed by at least 5 per cent of the student body followed by a recall election. Article X supplies the mechanics for removal from office. Under the concept of recall, which is quite different from impeachment, it is for the electorate to determine those activities which warrant removal from office. Policy abuses do constitute grounds for recall. Recall is essentially a democratic innovation designed to insure that an electorate can assure itself a government responsive to its desires. Thus, under the concept of recall it is necessary to examine the totality of the Leo Administration to evaluate whether or not he should be removed. The Eugene Coalition believes that recall is not a matter to be taken lightly. We are convinced that the totality of Leo’s actions and policies since he took office demonstrate the clear need for his immediate removal from office. Let us examine the abuses which have forced us to pursue recall. 1) The first area of issues which we will discuss is the misuse of student funds. The first matter of concern is the loan to last year’s recalled ASUO vice president and Leo’s political ally, Fred Loveys. It should be noted that ac cording to a former ASUO Assistant Comptroller these loans are often not repaid. The loan was drawn from a fund specifically designated for needy minority students. Loveys had no more right to the money than President Clark, but the Leo Administration gave it to him. The explanation which satisfied the Emerald is that the wrong account number was “mistakenly” put down on the form. The incredibility of this explanation speaks for itself. We suppose the Emerald also believes that Nixon “mistakenly” misplaced the tapes. Misuse of student funds is a serious charge. This episode exem plifies the high-handed mentality which Leo-Barnett have used again and again. We feel Leo-Barnett are overestimating the gullibility of the students if they expect to be allowed to misuse funds and offer outrageously unbelievable explanations when they are caught. Another example of misuse of student funds centers around an attempt to use student funds to provide flowers for the funeral of one of Barnett’s relatives. While we did not make this charge we are most concerned with it’s seriousness. Leo’s response is that the flowers were ordered but it’s all okay because the florist failed to make the delivery. We find this explanation most un satisfactory and regard it as an insult to the intelligence of the students. We fail to see how the ASUO executive is less culpable merely because the florist was incompetent in completing the tran saction. Is the Watergate crowd less guilty because the police thwarted their plans? Of course not! We have no choice but to conclude that Leo-Barnett have been guilty of misusing student funds in a most flagrant manner. Moreover, what is most disturbing is that they don’t seem to think there’s anything wrong with such activities. Their attitudes are intolerable in an ASUO executive responsible for ad ministering a budget of several hun dred thousand dollars. 2) The second major area of concern deals with the general direction of the Leo Administration. Those who recall Leo’s campaign last spring remember that he did little more than broadcast high sounding generalities regarding his willingness to be sensitive to the needs of students and ask for the students to trust him to be responsive to their needs and interests. We believe that Leo betrayed this trust with his outrageous actions since taking office. Clearly such a breach of trust con stitutes grounds for recall. Let us enumerate these grounds. A) Leo’s veto of the Daycare Budget has become an almost legendary example of executive insensitivity. The issues concerning Daycare last spring are basically rather simple. The IFC appropriated funds to continue running the daycare center. Leo vetoed this appropriation. In forty-eight hours over 2000 signatures in support of funding day-care were collected and presented to Leo. This is a phenomenal demon stration of support. We, who have just finished a successful petition drive, understand this better than anyone. Yet Leo had the audacity to stand by his veto and as recently as last week he still stood by his veto. This has been the reaction of the candidate who cam paigned on a platform which based itself on a claim to run a responsive and open administration. Clearly the daycare veto was in defensible. Leo’s view that it would be wrong to have all students pay for the daycare program which benefits only a certain group of students is out of line with all progressive concepts of government. Leo’s argument is worthy of Nixon or Reagan. These con servatives reject the entire notion of redistributive, progressive, social programs. Moreover, such con siderations did not stop Leo from in creasing the funding of the Athletic Department, another institution which benefits only a few. What it all boils down to is priorities. The Daycare Program is a most necessary program which has the misfortune of extending beyond the mythical Joe College world which is the limit of Leo’s vision. This program faced opposition, rather than help, from Leo. Had Leo announced his views on the daycare program during the campaign there is no doubt that he would have been defeated. He has betrayed student trust with a series of unjustifiable actions. It is now im perative that the students prevent further abuse and misuse by their ASUO. Leo has gone far beyond the limits of what the students can tolerate in an ASUO president. The other abuses will be detailed in the continuation of this multi-part article which will ap pear shortly. Letters Don't forget Attica Throughout America attention is currently being focused on the repressive police and prison systems around the world, many of which are directly sup ported by U.S. tax dollars. Yet it is im portant to remember that corrupt and inhuman penal systems are not a foreign invention. Perhaps the most striking evidence of this in recent years was the uprising at Attica prison in New York, and the resulting massacre in which 33 vir tually unarmed inmates and 10 of their guard-hostages were slaughtered by the N Y. state police under the direction of Gov. Rockefeller. Sixty of the prisoners who escaped death two years ago are currently being charged with “crimes” stemming from the uprising. Charges range from illegal possession of a prison key to murder. None of the original demands of the inmates have been met, conditions are in fact worsening. While we concentrate on the crimes of governments abroad, let’s not forget the state of our own Union. Free the Attica Brothers. John Damon Senior, English Don't we all? In response to Donald Taylor’s comment on my review of Robin Trower’s lp, and my statement, I must concede to say that I was indeed in error. To straighten Donald Taylor and any other Tull freaks, I most certainly was aware of the fact that JETHRO TULL is the name of a rock and ALL Of M PEOPLE AIL Of THE TIMEf of the PEopit au of WMf?..mc...Hcw ABOUT 3n OF m PEOPLE 981 OF U TIME ?. roll band, and not the name of Ian An derson or any individual associated with the band. I am sorry to say, and quite embarassed by the fact that I slipped, but don’t we all slip once in awhile? Mr. Taylor, your point was well taken. As for getting my shit together, it’s people like you who keep us honest, although I felt the comment to be in poor taste. Who are you to say publicly that I need to (as if I don’t already)? Nevertheless, arguing about such a minor detail is worthless. One other thing — as I mentioned at the start of this letter, I stated that “we all slip once in awhile.” My middle initial is “G” (rhymes with “C”), and not “B.” Can you dig where I’m cornin’ from now? For your own personal files you may be interested in the following: 1. JETHRO TULL has announced an “indefinite retirement” from the concert scene. 2. IAN ANDERSON, leader of the Tull has announced plans for a movie, ten tatively titled “War Child,” in which he will be playing the role of God, with several other members of the band assisting with the project. 3. There will be a soundtrack album as 0 „ well as a new Tull album to be expected from the film. 4. Lastly, the trade papers have denounced “Pashion Play” as dull (rhymes with Tull). Which you must assuredly may check out at your earliest convenience. Enough of this mudslinging. Let me say this: Jethro Tull is a good band. I asked God in my prayers the other night who the greatest Rn'R band in the world was, and he told me, “Jethro Tull. They’re not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays." Greg G. Lee
