-editorial
IFC candidates: four great, three good, six poor
This year's Incidental Fee Committee race
presents the most interesting cross section of
candidates in recent memory. Two major slates
involve all but three of the hopefuls: Jane Aiken, Bill
Dick, Dave Donley and Kevin Farrell; and
Mohammed Sarhan, Mayra Nieves, Wendy Young,
Jean Saso, Rebecca Vance and Jim Anderson. Tom
Bonner, Roger Leasure and Dave Simmons are not
allied with any particular slate (Leasure and Sim
mons were running together, but have split up their
efforts). Scott Palmer has withdrawn from the race.
The Aiken, Dick, Donley and Farrell slate is the
toughest to analyze. The candidates make strange
bedfellows, to say the least. If political leanings mean
much in an IFC race, Dick, Donley and Farrell would
have to be affixed to the right of center. Aiken
definately adheres to a more liberal philosophy. The
candidates on this slate support one another
because "we know we can work together." That
must be it, because differences between the can
didates are quite apparent.
The second ticket is allied by common beliefs:
minority funding, the role of incidental fees on
campus and stated priorities. The candidates do,
however, differ in their approach to budgetary
decision making.
The Emerald's endorsements follow neither of
these slates. Our decisions are made strictly on the
individuals and are based upon each candidate's
perception of the role of an IFC member, stated
priorities (both interest areas and total incidental fee
budget), approach to the job, and knowledge of the
incidental fee process.
The Emerald hopes students don't vote according
to slates because, by their nature, slates tend to
represent less than the total spectrum of student
interests. The Emerald is endorsing on the basic
premise that the most representative IFC would be a
balanced, receptive IFC.
General observations
Prior to listing our endorsements, there are some
other general observations about the candidates
which may aid students in making their choices.
The Emerald perceived a basic philosophical split
between candidates which ran across any slate
distinctions. Some candidates, chiefly Dick, Vance,
Donley and Bonner, see their decisions as IFC
members largely contingent upon the will of the
majority of students (as derived from polls, personal
contact or vote). Others, including Nieves, An
derson, Aaso and Aiken, see their roles as elected
representatives of students — elected upon stands
taken prior to election and assigned the task of
adhering to those beliefs. This latter perception is
more in line with how the Emerald views the role of
any IFC member.
There was one other major thought which split the
slates. Young, Saso, Anderson Simmons and Aiken
favored taking a hard but healthy look at the funding
levels of environmental and consumer programs to
insure they were not funded at the expense of
minority programs. The five agreed, however, that
environmental and consumer programs should
receive a high funding priority.
Only Donley seemed satisfied with the work of
environmental and consumer groups saying their
efforts provided tangible benefits and were therefore
worthy of funding.
Virtually all candidates agreed on three things:
the EMU budget should be carefully reviewed, the
Athletic Department budget should be carefully
reviewed, women's athletics should receive more
funds.
Aiken, Anderson, Aieves,
Sarhan
Now on to tne enoorsemenis. i ne canaiaaies Tan
into three catagories: those receiving the unqualified
endorsement of the Emerald, those receiving
qualified endorsements and those deemed un
desirable as IFC members.
Jane Aiken is an experienced hard worker and the
best of the 13 IFC candidates. A senior in political
science, Aiken has worked for two years on the
Athletic Budget Committee. Combined with this
nearly unequalled expertise in the AD's budget, she
has expressed interest in funding minority programs
on the premise that they provide educational
benefits for the majority of the campus.
Aiken favors close examination of irresponsible
use of funds and also suggested some unique ideas
about providing student in-put in the budgetary
process. Though Aiken, an unsuccessful candidate
for ASUO president last year, has been involved in
ASUO for some time, she has stayed out of the petty
in-fighting and directed her energies to helping
students.
Jim Anderson, a newcomer to student politics, is
also an impressive candidate. He has spent much
time reviewing the ASUO budgets of the past two
years and investigating the State Board of Higher
Education IFC guidelines.
While opposing funding to community-oriented
groups, Anderson supports funding of minority
programs. He opposes increasing the incidental fee,
however, and instead will work to distribute existing
monies in a more equitable manner. Anderson also
has said that under no circumstances will he seek re
election to the IFC if chosen this week. He insists on
this so that any decision he makes will be made out
of fairness and not political expediency. Anderson's
sincerity and commitment to fairness makes him an
outstanding candidate in this election.
Mayra Nieves also receives the Emerald's
unqualified endorsement. Like Anderson, she is
against raising the incidental fee, though she favors
funding for minority programs because of the unique
experiences she things they offer for the campus
majority. She would like to take a long look at the
EMU's $600,000 allocation in an attempt to find
corners to cut.
Nieves also favors increased women's athletic
programs though she would oppose giving money to
programs which are primarily directed toward the
community. Nieves, an EOS student from Puerto
Rico, is a freshman who could provide future ASUO
administrations with continuity.
Muhammed Sahran, a junior in computer science,
is an articulate and persuasive candidate. If an IFC
member, Sahran plans to judge each group by the
student interest it generates and the specific
program it presents to the IFC. He believes that each
program should be held strictly accountable for any
student funds it receives. As a third world student,
Sahran admits that he leans toward funding minority
programs though he would judge each budget by its
individual merits.
Sahran would give close scrutiny to the EMU and
AD budgets so that any increased minority funding
would not increase the incidental fee. He is a die
hard believer in the inquisitve nature of students, and
is refreshingly optimistic about students' abilities to
reconcile their differences. He would make an able
IFC member.
Farrell, Saso, Younq
Three other candidates have a "qualified" Emerald
endorsement. Though we believe that these three
would be viable IFC members, we must express
reservations.
Kevin Farrell, a junior in Public Administration, has
stressed that his main goal is to be fair and objective
in evaluating all programs. He lacks a penetrating
knowledge of ASUO, but convincingly stated that he
would objectively weigh each program in terms of its
past performance and give consideration to student
input. He is concerned with developing a better
distribution system for athletic tickets. While it is
bothersome that we don't know his precise priorities,
it is to his credit that Farrell is approaching the IFC
with an open mind and does not represent any
special interest. He would be a viable committee
member.
Jean Saso similarly receives a qualified Emerald
endorsement. Saso, a junior in journalism, favors
funding for minority groups and women's athletics.
She does not want to increase the incidental fee, and
favors more closely checking the monolithic EMU
budget. She opposes funding programs which serve
primarily community—and not campus—needs. Like
Farrell, she did not show a deep knowledge of the
ASUO, but with experience, Saso could be a good
IFC member.
Wendy Young, a senior in anthropology, also gets
a qualified yes from the Emerald. She sees a need for
minority programs which work to increase the social
awareness of the majority. She favors a more
equitable distribution between current ASUO pro
grams and would give close scrutiny to the
Forensics, EMU and OSPIRG budgets which
currently receive a large portion of IFC funds while
minority programs are slashed.
Moreover, Young could provide the new IFC with
a perspective which most candidates lack. As
co-director of an ASUO program, the University
Feminists, Young understand program problems and
the nuts and bolts of program budgetting. She is not
a dynamic or inspiring candidate though the Emerald
believes she is one of the top seven in the race.
Less than desirable
The fact that the Emerald gave only qualified
endorsements to Saso, Farrell and Young should not
obscure the fact that the remaining candidates
would be undesirable IFC members.
Bill Dick is the only current IFC member seeking
re-election. In the past year, Dick has consistently
voted to decrease minority programs in the name of
economy, while he had no qualms about raising
allocations to non-minority programs. For example.
he voted to give usrmu a uusi-ui-»vuim
when their budget, at $40,000, was already the fifth
largest granted by the IFC.
Dick recently voted to give athletes 200 free seats
in basketball games. He defends this vote by saying
that this did not take away from the student seats
since the giveaways did not detract from the number
of student tickets sold. The Emerald believes,
however, that these 200 seats come at the expense
of the average student who must now make room
for the athletes in the already tight confines of Mac
Court's student section. If these 200 seats were in
fact available, the Emerald believes the tickets should
have been distributed on a lottery basis to all the
students rather than awarded to a privileged few It
should be noted that Bill Dick is a very sincere and
hard working person. As an IFC member, however,
Dick did not consider the many diverse elements
which comprise the University. Because of this, the
Emerald does not recommend his re-election.
Rebecca Vance, running on the third world slate,
is not an impressive candidate. She showed little
understanding of the ASUO processes and organi
zations. Though she is personally for third world
group funding, she says that she would vote against
minority programs if the majority of the students
were opposed to such funding. Consequently, she
could not say what her priorities or goals were since
she is not aware of the student opinion.
Vance shows few leadership qualities, and as a
non-committed person could be subject to the
pressure of any group which could persuade her that
it represented the nebulous majority.
David Donley's candidacy is rather enigmatic. He
wants to keep the incidental fee down, yet he favors
doubling the Athletic Department's allocation to
$300,000 if he finds student support. Though he
would favor this dramatic increase, he stated a
predisposition against minority and "special inter
est" groups in the name of economy. The Emerald
finds this incongruous. On one hand Donley would
reduce minority funding —which comprises only
three per cent of the total IFC budget - saying they
only serve special interests. Vet he would double the
AD's allocation to comprise 30 per cent of the IFC
budget. Donley does not seem as opposed to special
interests as much as he is opposed to special
interests which do not benefit sports fans.
Donley also says he would judge groups by their
"tangible results." The incidental fee, however, is by
definition for "education and cultural enrichment."
The Emerald does not believe that education and
cultural enrichment can be quantified into tangible
results.
The worst candidate of the election is I om
Bonner. Bonner, a junior in mathematics, is a
perennial ASUO candidate running whenever an
election comes up He also has the habit of changing
his platform in each election, always picking the
stands which are most expedient. This year's
platform calls for stopping funding for any group
which is not white, male and heterosexual. Bonner
claims that this would decrease incidental fees, and
that minority students would be more respected if
they did not seek student money. (For example,
Bonner stated that Gay People's Alliance would be
more respected rf they did not direct their energies
for political events and instead did projects to help
elderly people and work in recycling efforts.)
The Emerald finds Bonner's overall approach to be
shallow and opportunistic. Eliminating minority
programs would only cut the $1 million IFC budget
by three per cent, a decrease which easily would be
eaten up by EMU inflation. While Bonner's
numerous candidacies always provide the ASUO
races with much-needed comic relief, he has little to
offer students or the funding process.
David Simmons and Roger Leasure would not
make good IFC members. While both have had
student government experience at Lane Community
College, neither showed much understanding of
ASUO. The two candidates took few stands on their
priorities or goals, saying they would support what
the students wanted. The Emerald believes that stu
dents deserve more information about a candidate's
stands than a lofty endorsement of democracy.
Leasure's and Simmons' non-commital attitudes
seem to be an outgrowth of their fundamental
ignorance of ASUO.
It should also be noted that Simmons made a
misleading statement in his Voters Guide statement
when he identified himself as LCC treasurer. Ac
tually, he only occasionally served as acting treasurer
in instances where the elected treasurer was absent.
The Emerald believes that an IFC made up of Jane
Aiken, Jim Anderson, Mayra Nieves, Mohammed
Sahran, Kevin Farrell, Jean Saso and Wendy Young
would be a hard working and balanced IFC which
would be receptive and sensitive to student interests.