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.