I opinion
Food-Op closure
leaves questions
Seeing the the Food-Op close its doors is bitter
medicine for a number of its patrons. The news might have
been less bitter had the Food-Op directors and ASUO ad
ministrators been straight with students about the reasons
for the closure.
In fact, dealing more openly and honestly with the situa
tion might have brought about a solution to what ever ailed
the Food-Op.
The tersely worded “explanation” of "ongoing financial
difficulties," and an unwillingness to talk about the closure
seems especially strange coming from ASUO Pres. Mary
Hotchkiss.
The Hotchkiss Administration prides itself on its
“reformed” style of student government. They were, at last
glance, a group working to be more open to University
students, in hopes of crushing student apathy. The miniscule
amount of information released by Hotchkiss is not the way
to end student apathy — it will likely have the opposite
effect.
Another factor is Hotchkiss’ involvement. The Food-Op
is a private, non-profit corporation with no ASUO or IFC
connection.
How did Hotchkiss become involved enough to issue
the statement?
And why were Food-Op directors so inaccessible after
such a drastic move? Why did Pat McGurk, the outreach
director, resign?
Without legal responsibility to answer those questions,
the ASUO, through its own involvement, and the Food-Op,
through its own structure as a cooperative, seem to have a
moral obligation lurking just around the corner.
And all the unanswered questions sound like the begin
nings of a dimestore mystery novel. Or the makings of some
nasty rumours.
The Food-Op and the ASUO should come clean with the
answers, before the final chapter.
Committee thwarts
student fee control
Student control of their incidental fees has been
thwarted at least for this year with the setting aside of House
Bill 2747 by the Senate Education Committee.
The bill set aside by the committee was a revision which
would have had incidental fee budgets jointly recommended
by the president of a college or university and by a recogniz
ed student government. Once an agreement was attained,
the budget would be submitted to the state board for ap
proval. This version of the bill was passed by the House of
Representatives. Originally, the bill would have banned
outright all mandatory student fees.
Despite the fairness of the second version the commit
tee chose to set the bill aside after Chancellor Bud Davis
gave them a written promise he would work with the student
government’s to develop a cohesive policy on incidental
fees.
A spokesperson for the Oregon Student Lobby said
Davis’ promise “is nc more than an attempt to deflect the in
terests of students another two years.” In this we agree.
What students seek is a more pronounced role on the deci
sions concerning incidental fee budgets and how the money
is allocated. The bill reflected this.
An often repeated argument against the bill was that
students were not competent enough to responsibly devise
an incidental fee budget and allocate the money.
At the University, where the budgeting and allocation of
incidental fees is a finely-honed bureaucratic process, the
argument is not altogether true. At other colleges and univer
sities in the state system the argument may be true. But com
petency can be achieved through autonomy.
Another argument was that student control of incidental
fees would cripple athletic departments. This seems to be
the old saw — "gown versus gridiron" — that has raged for
ad infinitum. Actually, athletic departments would be subject
to the same criteria as other incidental fee supported pro
grams. They would be responsible to wisely use the student
dollars at their disposal. If the programs were successful the
money would be there. If the programs were a failure the
money would not. (Success or failure in athletics are relative
terms and not solely Indictative of winning seasons.)
The setting aside of House Bill 2747 means that
students will continue to be required to blindly put their
money into the hands of other people and only hear of how it
is being spent. We sincerely hope Davis keeps his promise to
the education committee and does develop a cohesive policy
for Incidental fees We can’t speculate on the likelihood of
Davis’ promise being kept. And we wonder the likelihood of
him giving students more opportunity to manage their in
cidental fees
&j1MouW»
■50
'THE UW GiVETH ANDTWE WWTAKETM AWAY, TUITION TAX CffEPlTS BE-ETH THE NAME QTTHE6AMS!'
michele matassa
reporter’s notebook
Don't get me wrong, I
understand the plight of the
taxpayer. I understand that if
the taxpayer never says "no”
the government might run wild
in raising revenue.
But I'm afraid that the tax
payers have gone to the polls
— if they’ve gone to the polls
— a little too intent on show
ing the government who's
boss. And by getting carried
away with an anti-government
binge, taxpayer's often fail to
look at the bargain they may
be getting.
Some of those "worst
fears” were realized in the
county law enforcement levy
June 28.
We, the county’s voters,
turned down a $2.9 million tax
levy that would have afforded
us the “pleasures" of sheriff
patrols, criminal investiga
tions and adequate public ser
vice staffs at the district at
torney’s office and the
juvenile department.
Pardon the cliche, but the
taxpayers cut off their nose to
spite their face.
Those services would have
cost $26.40 in property taxes
for a $60,000 house,
something most property
owners Know. But the average
taxpayer may not know the
services refused weren’t lux
ury items, they were basics.
Those dollars were only to
maintain what was already
there.
Lane County voters blew it.
An average month’s phone
bill runs more than $26 for
most of us. Cable Television
service is about half of that
$26. At $4.25 a shot, a person
could see "Return of the Jedi"
six times. And for a family of
four, with popcorn and soda,
$26 is one trip to theater.
Think of what could have
been, at $26 a year. It’s the
same as what you won’t be
getting now.
You won’t be getting the
protection of 25 sheriff's
patrol officers who were laid
off Friday. You won’t be get
ting the help provided by
seven other sheriff’s deputies,
two sergeant’s, two commu
nication-records special
ists, 12 communications
records officers, one store
clerk, one program analyst and
three secretaries.
You won’t be able to call the
sheriff’s office to report a
crime or accident — well, you
can call but they can’t
respond.
You won’t even get help
from the district attorney’s of
fice in prosecuting drunk
drivers.
You may wish the sheriff’s
patrol had been out in force, if
you, or some one you know is
victimized.
You may wish the levy elec
tion was tomorrow.
Michele Matassa is the
Emerald's associate editor for
the community.
letters
Unisex insurance
United States Sen. Bob Packwood and his
"feminist” cohorts are really pushing their luck
this time by fighting to pass a "unisex” in
surance bill. Packwood is supposedly a strong
supporter of women's interests, but this type of
"unisex" insurance would drive up women's
rates to the same level as men's.
You may think it would be fair to have
equal rates, but when you look at the facts, I
think you’ll reconsider. For every age group,
men have been shown as more reckless, with
more drunken driving, and more severe ac
cidents than women in these same age groups.
What’s fair about raising women's rates to
equal men’s when generally women tend to be
safer drivers, with more fender benders than
the major accidents of their male counterparts?
Several years ago Michigan adopted a
similar rate system and women's insurance
rates soared as much as 195 percent above
what they were previously paying for same age
groups, such as young women.
This would be an extreme burden for
lower-income women, single working mothers
and two-car, two-driver families as well.
You may gripe about the high cost of in
surance now, but just think how you'd be af
fected by such legislation. This is one
Republican precinct person who’ll be working
against both this bill and Packwood — when he
runs for office again.
Lori Park man
Springfield
Oregon daily
emerald
Th* summer edition ot the Oregon Deity Emerald is publish
ed Tuesdays and Thursdays, except during exam «eefc and
racaltons. by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co at the
University ol Oregon Eugene Oregon 97403
The Emerald operates independently ot the University with
Ottices on ihe third floor ot the Erb Memorial Union and is a
member of the Associated Press
News and Editorial CM SS11
Display Advertising and Business MB37I2
Classified Advertising SM-4343
Production £66 436!
Circulation AM 5511
Editor
Managing Editor/News Editor
Editorial Page Editor
Photo Editor
E4Hoct
Debbie Howlett ,
Sandy Johnstone
Cort Femald
Mark Pynes
Higher Education;Departments and Schools Joan Herman
Student Government
Politics Editor
Community Editor
Night Editor
Jim Moore
Brooks Darett
Michele Matassa
Debbie Howlett
General Staff
Advertising Manager
Classified Advertising
Production Manager
Controller
Darlene Gore
Sally Oljar
Victoria Koch
Jean Ownbey