Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012, April 23, 1980, Page 4, Image 4

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    opinion
ASUO candidates offer solid choice
The race for the ASUO presidency has
shaped up a little differently this year: The two final
candidates whose names will appear on the ASUO
Election ballot today and Thursday are Alan Con
treras and Dave Eaton. While both exhibit enthu
siasm for the leadership role they seek to fill, their
ambitions seem tempered by experience gained
as elected representatives on the Incidental Fee
Committee.
Both candidates seem to have some sense of
student needs, as well as a grasp of what financial
and human resources are available to meet those
changing needs. And both also seem genuinely
anxious to seek student opinions and responses
in the hope of achieving a more accurate repre
sentation of the student body’s concerns.
Because Contreras and Eaton share almost
identical viewpoints on all major issues currently
being dealt with by the ASUO and because their
goals for next year are remarkably similar, it was
difficult to arrive at this year’s endorsement.
In light of the time and thought he has put into
the analysis of ASUO programs and their use of
IFC funds this year, we endorse Dave Eaton for the
ASUO presidency. However, especially when
considering how narrow the choice of candidates
has been in previous years, the student body
should be gratified to have two worthwhile repre
sentatives running for the position.
Although some of the Student University
Affairs Board candidates up for election can
match Contreras and Eaton in their enthusiasm,
they are all distinctly lacking administrative ex
perience. After consideration of the ideas each
has for how SUAB can better listen and respond to
the needs of students, we are endorsing Sheri
Swanson for Position 3 (representing business
and economics students), and both Clayton
Lance and Susan Browning for Positions 14 and
15 (representing English, music, language, lin
guistics, religion and philosophy students).
Swanson has shown some initiative by at
tending some of this year’s SUAB meetings, in
contrast to some of the other candidates who did
not. She appears to be sincerely enthusiastic
about involving herself in student government and
deserves a chance to put some of that energy into
action.
Lance may be the most energized of the
SUAB candidates and has obviously put some
constructive thought into how he could better
serve the interests of the students he hopes to
represent. He was equipped with specific exam
ples of student grievances which he asserted had
not been given fair consideration and also has
realistic expectations of the workload that SUAB
duties would require.
Browning has had some experience with the
functions of SUAB, having served as an appointed
representative for the last two months. She in
tends, if elected, to develop a tighter relationship
with the ASUO that would help SUAB improve its
image as a legislative and lobbying body. With a
revitalized image, Browning hopes that student
viewpoints would be easier to solicit.
Of the five Straw Ballot proposals that will
come before voters, the one most crucial to
students is the Athletic Department’s request for a
$20-per-term athletic event fee. Although this vote
will serve only in an advisory capacity to Pres.
Boyd, a rejection of the measure, which we sup
port, will indicate to the State Board of Higher
Education how students feel about this kind of
assessment. The State Board will be considering
such a mandatory fee proposal at its meeting
Friday in Portland.
Five amendments to the ASUO constitution
will also be approved or rejected at the ballot
booths today and Thursday. We urge you to vote
YES on Amendment 2, and NO on all the rest.
Amendment 2 calls for special elections to be
held in determining whether a specific ASUO
program can receive additional funding in excess
of the 7 percent spending limitation. It also states
that if such a measure is put before the student
body, the proposal must state exactly how much
the program wishes to exceed the current limita
tion. The amendment is a sensible way to increase
funding for specific programs, while at the same
time remaining responsible to the students who
are paying for them.
Amendment 1 is a mixed bag. While address
ing the issue of the EMU’s escalating operating
costs by attempting to exempt them from the 7
percent limitation, it also calls for a similar ex
emption for the Athletic Department. Although we
would support such an exemption in light of the
EMU House budget problems, such an amend
ment should also include a specific ceiling on
spending increases rathei than as a blank-check
proposal.
Consistent with our objection to the Athletic
Department’s proposal for a new $20-per-term
athletics fee, we reject the notion that the AD
should stand above the limitations put on other
programs and events. If the AD wishes to petition
the student body for this or any other spending
limitation exemption, they should do so in a direct ,
manner and the proposal should include specific
budget proposals, not vague, open-ended ones.
Amendment 3 also deserves a NO vote. There
is no reason to exempt interim presidential ap
pointments to elected positions from Affirmative
Action guidelines, which is the effect this measure
would have. The process of incorporating these
guidelines is not a complicated one, nor is it time
consuming. This amendment would merely make
it easier for a president to appoint cronies to these
vacated positions, rather than choosing fairly from
the most qualified candidates available.
Amendments 4 and 5 are rather ironic
proposals in that they call for more student par
ticipation in University affairs at a time when such
involvement is sorely lacking. The Amendments
call for the election of “Senior Class Officers” who
would “be responsible for developing and coor
dinating graduation exercises.” We urge a NO
vote because the present system of operation,
while perhaps requiring some modification by the
administration, seems to be handling this heavily
bureaucratic responsibility in a reasonable man
ner. Although it would be appropriate for the
administration to take into account student’s
preferences when selecting a commencement
speaker, this could be more efficiently accom
plished within the existing framework.
vours
wn
Barely koala
Perhaps Dawn Haberland
would find better luck coming
her way if she stopped calling
her “good luck charm" a koala
BEAR. Lucky it may be, but a
bear it is not!
Betty Lowe
secretary, counseling
Ignored ideas
In a recent front page article
on Big Business Day, the Emer
ald wrote about the speakers in
the panel discussion given at
the EMU last Thursday, but al
together failed to mention the
contribution given to the group
by Charles O. Porter, simply
because he is a candidate for
the U S. Senate. Porter had
some important and enlighten
ing things to say about the
problems caused by the multi
national corporations and I
don’t feel it was right for the
Emerald to completely ignore
his presence at the forum He
did mention his views on other
issues, but in a world where
problems and issues increas
ingly overlap, these views did
not seem improper in the least.
The Emerald had no right to
omit his contribution to the dis
cussion.
Kent Laverty
junior, political science
Broad support
More Power to Ya’ has decid
ed to not endorse any candidate
for political office. However, I
would like to submit a personal
endorsement.
During errands in the ASUO
office, I have had the chance to
meet and become acquainted
with Alan Contreras. I am very
impressed by this young man’s
ability to elicit broad-based re
spect and support from in
dividuals who would normally
find little to agree on, and am
convinced that all students
seeking a strong, competent,
sensitive non-elitist president of
the ASUO would be well advised
to help Alan Contreras gain the
office.
Robert McNeely
member, More Power To Ya’
Defends result
Dale F. Duhan, in his letter of
Apr 16th, claims that the Amer
ican Federation of Teacher’s
poll of faculty attitudes on col
lective bargaining shows “how
to lie with statistics." Perhaps
Duhan is not aware of a few
things
First, the survey drew re
sponses from over 40 percent of
the eligible faculty; the Emer
ald’s figure of 1400 eligible
voters is far too high. Second,
neirs
JOT
m
- } •'i<e utofM..
©P* A>4*sle*> TiM&> 5vmxu /v"
I
/
I WANTAMYBOfff
($UT ANVBOOV/)
FOR U.5. ARMV
FOR TEST ANSWERS 5K VOOR MEAfttf
respondents said that in 1976
they had opposed collective
bargaining by a 3:2 margin, al
most exactly the division in the
actual vote. Thus, these were
not a self-selected group of
hardcore union enthusiasts.
Third, also, the A.F.T.'s mem
bership is small enough so that
even if every one of our
members had voted "yes” in the
survey, there would still be a
solid margin of non-members
responding in favor of collective
bargaining.
When I took elementary sta
tistics, I learned there were two
types of errors researchers
made. Duhan accuses the
A.F T. of Type I error, of incor
rectly claiming a significant dif
ference between 1976 and 1980
opinions. There's a Type II error
as well, that of mistakenly ig
noring a significant difference. I
predict that when faculty votes
for collective bargaining to
prevent further erosion of our
living standards, Duhan may
recognize his Type II error.
Incidentally, long before I
took elementary statistics, I
learned not to call people liars
without knowing the truth my
self. Someone should teach
Duhan that lesson.
Daniel Pope
history department
secretary, A.F.T.; local 3209