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.”