Letters
Human tragedy
Last week’s television presen
tation, “The Holocaust," raised
many feelings, questions and
concerns. Thursday night, there
was to be a discussion organized
by the Campus Christian Ministry
and the Jewish Student Union to
share some of the sorrow and
fear, to unite and reaffirm the
basic nature of humankind as
good.
It was terribly unfortunate that a
small group of people would have
seized this moment to air their
political message. This descent
upon an unwitting audience was a
most inappropriate display of what
I believe to be the basis of the
Arab-lsraeli conflict: a mutual
anti-semitism.
The feelings raised by “The
Holocaust” are not political. “The
Holocaust” was not only a Jewish
tragedy, but a human tragedy of
unequalled magnitude. An Arab
and a Jew should be able to feel
this together. Unti I we do I see little
hope for real peace.
Howard Greenwald
Junior, Biology
Letters Policy
*
The Emerald will accept and try
to print all letters and opinion col
umns containing fair comment on
ideas and topics of concern or
interest to the University commun
ity. Letters and opinions will be
run on a first-come, first-served
basis. Both letters and opinion
columns must be typewritten,
using 65 character margins, and
should be triple-spaced. Letters
and opinions must be signed and
the author’s field of study (or fa
culty status) noted.
■" opinion
Scrutinize the candidates
Submitted by Roger Senders
Senior, Speech/Education
and 12 co-signers
Having just completed a budgetary hearing with
the Incidental Fee Committee, we felt you, the stu
dent body, would be interested in the approach taken
by the IFC members to represent your interest in the
allocation of incidental fees. In this letter we offer
observations of the way the IFC seems to be dealing
with ASUO programs in general. We offer specific
examples from the hearing on the Forensics budget,
but apparently the behavior was not unique. It should
also be noted that not all IFC members behave in the
manner noted below, only a majority of them.
The criteria by which IFC members determine
the budgets of programs is arbitrary and capricious.
Although each program must submit a list of program
goals through which funding levels are to be set,
these goals are ignored. For example, during the
hearing for Forensics, the Committee discussed a
motion to fund intercollegiate competition at $6,200.
One committee member informed the audience that
the procedure was to be handled, “like an auction.”
The auction ended when intercollegiate competition
was “sold” for $5,000. In justifying this figure, the
committee member who made the motion remarked
that the figure he had arrived at was, “arbitrary.” An
audience member asked if the more proper term
might be, “capricious.” A second committee member
responded, “Well, they’re the same thing aren’t
they?” The IFC should be neither.
Any committee which allocates funds, evaluated
programs and votes on important matters must op
erate efficiently. Committee members have an obli
gation to conduct themselves reasonably during a
hearing. A majority of the IFC members demon
strated a severe lack of knowledge of parliamentary
procedures. At times, members of the committee
admitted they were confused on which motion was
on the floor, which motions were open to discussion
and whether a vote was in order. Throughout the
hearing, members spoke without being recognized,
to offer such pertinent comments as (in discussing
fundraising), “Well, I have 18 boxes of Girl Scout
cookies at home, I’ll let you have." These far from
exigent comments waste the valuable time of all par
ties involved.
In addition to an apparent lack of understanding
of how to operate a hearing, many of the committee
members conducted themselves in a rude and irre
sponsible manner. It would seem as though some of
the IFC members were more interested in "playing
power games” than in representing the student body
in the allocation of incidental fees. Continually
throughout the meeting, one of your representatives
attempted to monopolize discussion whether from
her seat or from the other parts of the room to which
she aimlessly wandered. Another member exhibited
little willingness to discuss motions as he was in
tent upon zero budgeting the program.
By the end of the hearing, the committee
realized that the Forensics Program had been cut by
more than the 10 percent allowable under IFC
guidelines. To make up for the cut, one committee
member offered a motion to increase funding for
“payroll assessment” from $35.76 to over $500. The
motion was supported by at least two members until
discussion pointed out the absurdity and irresponsi
bility of the motion. You see, payroll assessment
can’t be spent on any Forensics projects. The motion
was an attempt to meet the guidelines and still keep
the money from being available to Forensics. We
congratulate the majority of the committee for being
aware of their responsibility to the student body and
the organizations that serve it, by voting down the
motion.
The experience has been an awakening one for
us. We have seen what can happen when a student
body shows little interest in the selection process for
its representatives. We have seen an appallingly
rude panel of “representatives” behave in a wholly
irresponsible and arbitrary fashion. This must stop!
Certain members are an embarrassment to the stu
dent body and the University as a whole. In the
future, we urge you, the Associated Students of the
University of Oregon, to get qualified candidates to
run. We urge you to carefully scrutinize candidates
who do run and then get out and vote. Only the
student body can stop this embarassment from hap
pening again!
■■ ■ opinion—.. v
Bookstore profits
Submitted by Mark Cogan, Bookstore
Board of directors member, senior
political science
The University of Oregon Bookstore is supposed to be oper
ated on a non-profit basis. In my two years on the Bookstore’s
Board of Directors I have grown increasingly dissatisfied with the
fact that in recent history the Bookstore has been displaying a
consistent record of high profits — a record that is hardly becom
ing to a 'non-profit' organization.
Let’s look at the Bookstore’s financial records. In the past
three years, the Bookstore has made an astounding total of
$320,000 in profits. In the current fiscal year, the Bookstore has
already made profits of over $100,000. Of the $320,000 made
over the last three years, $103,000 has gone into increased cash,
with another $173,000 going into increased inventories, Are such
profits appropriate for an organization that is supposed to be “non
profit”? I think not.
Some profits are reasonable if they are needed to assure
financial solvency for the Bookstore. On this account, the Book
store is already on solid ground, with $200,000 in bonds and an
anticipated stable University enrollment for the future. No addi
tional profits are needed to assure financial solvency.
A second reasonable justification for some profits is to main
tain an inventory that must be expanded due to inflation on such
items as books and school supplies. This inflation allowance for
inventory maintenance calls for about $45,000 annual profits.
Why, then, is the Bookstore amassing profits so much in
excess of amounts needed to maintain its operations? The prob
lem lies with a Board of Directors that, as a whole, is too sym
pathetic to salting away money for possible future expansion that
is now no more than a gleam in some people’s eyes. The Board is
not as sympathetic as it should be to the difficulties borne by
students who have to suffer repeated tuition increases and high
textbook prices.
At its last meeting, the Board decided to reduce this year’s
profits by the token amount of from $10,000 to $15,000. At the
same time, however, the Board decided to shift funds into ac
counts to help finance vague notions of possible future expansion
and to partially pay for cash registers that won’t even be pur
chased until three years from now. Rather than operate on a
modest, pay-as-you-go basis, the present Board of Directors
prefers to operate the Bookstore in a fashion as to chalk up huge
profits and then frantically scramble for a place to hide them.
I should mention that even Bookstore Manager Jim Williams
went into the April Board meeting proposing that this year’s profits
be cut to a much smaller figure than that decided upon by the
Board. The blame for this policy direction must fall squarely on the
shoulders of the Board of Directors — not Bookstore manage
ment.
I should also mention that the Emerald, with its apparent
disinterest in covering Board meetings, has permitted the
Bookstore's excessive profits to remain safely unknown to the
public. Since my term of office on the Board will soon be ending,
this is my last real opportunity to bring these facts to public
attention.
The problem of excessive profits is a matter of Bookstore
policy to be addressed by the Board of Directors. Rectifying the
situation is a simple as electing Board members who take the
consumer-oriented approach of reducing Bookstore profits.
Happily, there are at least three such persons running for
election to positions on the Bookstore Board of Directors. They
are Janet Eggleston, Dave Tyler and Rocky Schatz. In the elec
tion this week, please do yourself a favor and vote for these
candidates and a Bookstore that is more accountable to its mem
bership.
r »cm) vtx> rowjwe
wt&om, ccMperzuT auo
cxceur thiM6 fcr *ne ^
ox MOO s
(bOOQ
gov May cwr gem a rxt
pot r
/f> FAITH
aj