Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 10, 1978)
editorial Get out the vote! Every year at about this time, the candidates for ASUO president go to the voters with their ideas and energy. And every year at just a little later than this time, the students come out with a paltry percentage to vote for the candidate of their choice. This year, a large turnout will be especially important. That is because whoever is ASUO president next year — either Jeff Warren or Ramon Herrera — will be going to the state legislature, the State Board of Higher Education and the chancellor of higher education with ideas and positions on a number of issues that affect you as students. Among those issues undoubtedly will be tuition, day care, release of faculty evaluations and a myriad of others. Without a strong showing in the ASUO general elections today and Thursday, the president will have some explain ing to do about how he claims to represent a majority of the students. Often students complain about the “sandbox” nature of the ASUO government. But the ASUO is involved, and will be involved in significant ways next year, in issues that strike dose to home. The stronger the showing in the ASUO elections, the stronger the ASUO president will be. So get out the vote today and Thursday. For a few brief minutes of your time, you may have a direct effect on the issues that have a direct effect on you. V. Letters Join the rally Attorney General Redden has finally come right out with the truth about why the State Board has not yet divested itself of stocks in cor porations that support the horrors of apartheid in Southern Africa. He has stated that, according to the “law of the land”, only economic factors can be consi dered in the state system s buying and selling of stocks, that moral and political concerns are not re levant. After months of struggle on this campus does he really expect us to be satisfied with a decision that rates economic concerns above all else? Some students may argue that the Attorney General had to make that decision since that is what the law says (which is questionable). But even if this is the case, should we then be satisfied with a legal system that places economic concerns above moral and politi cal ones? If we are, then we may as well be part of the white minor ity regime in Southern Africa where the legal system is such that it is actually “illegal” for any blacks to own land, publish news papers, organize unions, hold hands with whites, learn to read or hold jobs higher than whites. r The legal system in Southern Africa institutionalizes racism and exploitation of 20 million blacks. With the Attorney General’s re cent opinion against divestiture, the legal system in Oregon is now officially aligning itself on the side of that white minority regime and the U.S. corporations that support it. I urge al1 students to speak out against this decision. Join the rally in Salem on May 19th. Victory to the people of South ern Africa. Cameron Kelly 1841 E. 15th Ave. Eugene For Warren Sunday afternoon, Jeff Warren and I were relaxing in Suite 5, shooting the breeze about the As sociated Students. “If there is one thing I know about the students,” he said, “it’s that there is no major ity.” As we talked on, he told me that he hates stereotyping. He said that he wants to see the ASUO Executive include people from dif ferent backgrounds and interest groups. - ■■■■ opin ion 1 1 IFC political, unaccountable Submitted by Martin Salmon Senior, Architecture, ASC/AIA Chapter president The main function of the Incidental Fee Commit tee (IFC) is to determine the budget for the next year. A principal task of the Committee is to divide over $1 million fairly and without incident. It has recently been stated by the ODE editor that “in watching the current IFC in action, it appears their biggest problem is not fairness but consistency.” Amen, Wally Benson! But from my observation, fairness and consistency are secondary complaints. The major problem is accountability, and until now has remained unaddressed. The IFC demands the strict accountability of all the ASUO funded programs under their jurisdiction...and rightfully so. Program staff and per sonnel are required to submit complete goals and guidelines to the Committee for their inspection and approval. Yet, the IFC itself remains severely unac countable. Its seven members have not developed any of their own written goals and guidelines to gov ern their actions or procedures. Unfortunately, the current committee members have not taken the responsibility or initiative to seek consistency and equity in funding allocations. And that lack of initiative has in turn hurt many ASUO funded programs. One would expect more than arbit rary policies from an elected body which bears the responsibility of controlling $1.4 million, in the in terest of students. Confusion is inevitable when the IFC doesn’t have any documented foundation; therefore, their service is difficult to interpret, difficult to comply with, and inordinately diff.oilt to rationalize. A closer look at what the IFC really does may also shed light on what the IFC has failed to do. During fall term, the IFC sponsored an orienta tion session designed to inform program personnel how to develop a budget. Unfortunately, that session was poorly publicized — and to no one’s surprise, the greater the number of inaccuracies in a submitted budget, the less likely a program is of being fully funded. As is the case for many new programs barely off the ground, the residual structure is in limbo when the program director graduates. Not only is the continua tion of the program in jeopardy, but so are the actions of any new people with the spending of money previ ously allocated by the IFC. It is not common know ledge what one can spend IFC money for or even how to get it. Supplying that information should be the Committee’s foremost concern. The cause of this misinformation on spending policies is a direct outgrowth of the IFC’s absence of guidelines. What evolves as a result is a breakdown in communication between the Committee and stu dents. There also exists a “duplication of services” in that IFC tag-persons must essentially compile and learn information that is already known by the Stu dent University Affairs Board (SUAB) representa tives. Those representatives already know about their school's academic programs, and understand program goals, constituency, cost, and money con tribution to Incidental Fees. However, the SUAB input is kept to a bare minimum. And thus, the com munication gap widens. As it stands, the Incidental Fee Committee is too political and is not a fair representation of the whole campus community. There exists the opportunity for manipulative practices, especially favoritism to the voting constituencies that put them into office in the first place. Ironically, those political overtones sur face each year about this time. This year’s IFC has spawned several candidates for the big position, that of ASUO President, just as in years past. In conclusion, I say, let’s keep politics and politi cal aspirations out of the money allocation business for programs. The student majority is not getting a fair representation by the IFC. Part of the problem is the unwillingness of many students to participate in ASUO programs. But who can blame them, with the difficulty and discouragement that seems to precede developing a budget through the IFC. There exists too much free-play in the belts of the IFC. And until the Committee tightens up, they will continue to be viewed as not fulfilling their duty. Everybody needs to have a say," he said. Later, I thought about what Jeff had said and it dawned on me that this was not campaign rhetoric. Jeff was part of the student group that represents all disciplines (SUAB) and has given solid sup port to the various minority stu dent unions while on the Inciden tal Fee Committee. He means what he says and he has the re cord to back him. His record brings up another point. Recently, in an effort to keep student government from stagnating, some people have looked at experience as some thing negative or dirty. But what is wrong with experi ence? Jeff doesn’t just have ex perience but he has the right ex perience to form a sound, broad based ASUO. Jeff Warren wants what I want for the ASUO. Isn't it what we all want? Jane Harris Senior, Journalism For Herrera After having failed to reach the ASUO presidential election run off, I have assessed the qualities of the two remaining candidates, Ramon Herrera and Jeff Warren. It is clear that Ramon Herrera is the best choice for students who want an energetic and innovative ASUO executive next year. Ramon has shown himself re sponsive to student needs, practi cal in his ideas, and mature enough to handle his campaign without playing the game of cam pus politics. Although Warren has partici pated for many years in student government, it would seem that the ASUO could use a refreshen ing change from conventional student politics. Ramon is a real alternative. He can work well both with student programs and with the University Administration. He has the motivation and the experi ence to best represent student concerns. Most important of all, he will make the ASUO offices in Suite 4 become a place where all students will be able to bring their ideas, their grievances and protn lems of all kinds. I support Ramon Herrera for ASUO president. I hope you will also show your support and vote Herrera in the ASUO elections. Mike Lockwood For Heady As a CSPA/political science major, I would like to join with the Emerald's endorsement in sup porting Don Heady for SUAB posi tion #14. One of his major concerns is attacking apathy and I feel that he is the one candidate with the capabilities and energy to force a greater and more active role for SUAB. His concern on other im portant university-wide issues such as GTFF bargaining support, fair wages for all university emp loyees (including the food service workers) and increased student voice in administrative decisions affecting our education, would be met with the same forcefulness and sensibility he has exhibited in the past. Lending his time to help solve the space problem the library is currently facing is another major issue Don would tackle. After all, let’s not put a limit on knowledge. I am certain that Don would work closely within the voter con stituency and view his position as one of ombudsman with an ag gressive attitude. Make the best choice and vote for Don Heady for SUAB position #14. Kay Kusy Junior, CSPA/Political Science 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 must be typewritten, using 65-character margins, and should be triple spaced. Letters and opinions must be signed, with the author 's year and field of study (or faculty status) noted. Letters and opin ions will be run on s first-come first-served basis.
