Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (June 2, 1981)
dailyemerald Vol. 82, No. 167 Eugene, Oregon 97403 Tuesday, June 2, 1981 EPUD loses bid to purchase dams By GREG WASSON Of the Emerald SALEM — As round one of a legislative battle with the Emerald People’s Utility District enters its second week, it appears that Pacific Power and Light already has the edge. By a vote of 36 to 21, the House approved legislation Monday barring EPUD from condemning and buying portions of power generating dams owned by PP&L on the North Umpqua near Roseburg The vote on HB-3173 is likely to be reconsidered today, but there’s little reason to expect a change in the result. The first vote on the bill occurred Friday, and PP&L’s margin of victory increased by two in the Monday tally. Lawmakers like Rep. Bill Bradbury, D-Coos County, charged that the bill is intended to cripple the fledgling EPUD. In November, district voters approved bond sales totaling $72 million to allow the district to buy PP&L distribution lines and, unless blocked by a court challenge, to acquire some of the utility’s power supply. According to Bradbury, the Oregon Constitution allows public utilities to condemn and buy non-thermal power projects that are privately owned, so that “the electricity generated by the state’s free-falling water will serve the public I rather than make a profit for some company. “PP&L knew when it built the dams in 1947 whatthe rules were. Now, they want to change the rules contrary to the vote of the people and contrary to the Oregon Constitution. “Let me put it another way — what PP&L couldn’t win at the ballot box, they’ve come to the Legislature to win.” However, supporters of the bill didn’t share Bradbury’s analysis. Despite the fact that Bradbury and others pointed out that most public projects — like roads, transmission lines and landfills — are constructed on land taken through the condemnation procedure, those in support of the measure labeled any proposed condemnation by EPUD stealing. Rep. Larry Campbell, R-Eugene, said that the effort represented a violation of basic American values. Campbell referred to the fact that much of Oregon’s public power fight had been led by the Oregon State Grange. “Interestingly enough, the Grangers have never taken anything from anyone that they didn’t deserve. They have a tendency to understand the great work ethics of this country." Campbell and Rep. Peg Jolin, D Cottage Grove, who also voted in favor of the legislation, represent the area en compassed by EPUD. I !\V I U^r—TTT wm m After the vote, the results were compared with 1980 campaign con tributions. Of the 36 people favoring the bill, 26 received contributions of $100 or more from PP&L. Only two of the 21 voting in opposition received such con tributions. IB! — I Emerald graphic The EPUD issue has had a colorful history this session. In February, Attor ney General Dave Frohnmayer said that given the current statutes, EPUD “probably" didn’t have the constitutional authority to condemn a portion of the dam. School cracks down on student cheating Profs observing more dishonesty By CAROL MORTON Of the Emerald Two students sitting next to each other during a business exam are busy filling in their blue books. A typical scene — but the blue books bear the same name. When asked about the situation, both students claim to be the person regis tered for the class, and later they show similar identification. Eventually, one of the students admits he asked the other person to take his test. As a result, a note ex plaining the incident is attached to his transcript until he completes 100 hours of assigned community service. The transcript statement says the student is guilty of violating the part of the Code of Student Conduct that defines cheating as “dishonesty, in cluding academic cheating, academic plagiarism, or knowingly furnishing false information to University officers of instruction or administration." According to members of the Student Conduct Committee, cheating is in creasing on campus The committee dealt with 13 cases of academic dis honesty during the 1979-80 school year. So far this year, it has dealt with 14 cases. Student Conduct Coordinator Ver non Barkhurst separates academic dis honesty into three categories: copying from another person's paper or from illegal crib notes, plagiarizing, and substituting exam-takers. “There is a rash of that kind of case =1* Graphic by Sioux Anderson this year — a person brings in a ringer to take the exam for him,” Barkhurst says. Three cases of substitute exam taking were reported during winter term alone, compared to only one case last year. One student said she took a com puter science class for a friend be cause she got A’s when she took the class herself. Barkhurst recalls examples of another kind of cheating — plagiarism. One person turned in an article on Doonesbury as an illustration of satire, he says. The professor immediately realized that the material was lifted directly from a magazine And in an English class, a freshman submitted two themes plagiarized from a freshman composition manual — a collection of essays and themes used as writing models. "The screwball had the stupidity to take themes and, with slight modifica tion, turn them in," Barkhurst says The more common kind of plagiarism is verbatim copying or copious borrowing from sources for an assigned paper, Barkhurst says. Some students turn in papers written entirely by someone else, including former students, or mail-order term papers. House Bill 2513 — now in the Legislature’s judiciary committee — would stop mail-order cheating by prohibiting the sale of papers assigned for higher education credits. The third cheating catagory is the “basic cribbing case" — bringing notes into an exam or looking at another student’s answer sheet Typically, this involves two people, Barkhurst says. "When this kind of case is reported, the instructor usually can tell that both are helping or one is an innocent victim. ‘Sometimes these cases surface when people are marking exams. The grader reads an unusual answer and, lo and behold, another paper has the same wrong answer.” Faculty members who suspect a student of cheating must follow procedures outlined in the student conduct code. Before taking any action, a professor first must confront the suspected cheater with evidence backing the allegation and ask the student to admit or deny the charge. If the student admits guilt, the professor can take action through academic evaluation. If the student denies the charges, the issue is forwarded to Barkhurst, and the case is resolved informally or in a contested hearing Most cheating cases end up in a hearing. Barkhurst advises students to go the contested-hearing route if they feel they are innocent or if they don't think their guilt can be proven. Incidents of academic dishonesty must be reported to a dean or depart ment head and the student conduct coordinator, according to a student conduct committee memo sent to faculty members a year ago. But Gor don Murphy, head advisor for the biology department, says most profes sors handle cheating individually with the student and don't file a report. Murphy says he has only two cheat ing reports on file from the last three years. "I'm not saying cheating doesn't happen very often — I just don't hear about it.”
