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