Oregon daily emerald., February 06, 1987, Image 1

Are outdoor
sports safe?
See Page 10
Friday. February 6. 1987
Oregon Daily
Emerald
Eugene, Oregon Volume 88. Number 94
House opposes bill
to limit incidental fees
By Chris Norred
Of the Emerald
SALEM — A bill proposing to
limit the fees students must pay
for student programs was effec
tively killed Thursday with a
visible turnout of students who
Legislative
issues
k'
opposed the bill.
About 25 concerned students
from around the state filled a
session of the House education
committee in a show of opposi
tion that convinced committee
members to table House Bill
2252, thereby eliminating its
chances of passing in this
legislative session.
The bill’s sponsor said it
would lower tuition at the
University by cutting $41 a term
from the student incidental fee.
But student leaders argued
those “insignificant” savings
would not be worth the
devastating effect such a cut
would have on programs fund
ed with the fees.
The incidental fee is a portion
of total tuition by which
students finance non-academic
student activities and services
such as athletics, student
unions, and various minority
student organizations.
ASUO President Steve
Nelson, Incidental Fee Commit
tee Chairwoman Jodi Moonie,
and Portland State University
student body President Michael
Turn to Fees, Page 5
OSPIRG budget approved
By Carolyn Lamberson
Of the Emerald
Controversy surrounding the
proposed budgets of the Oregon
Student Public Interest
Research Group and the In
cidental Fee Committee prevail
ed during the 1FC budget hear
ings on Thursday.
At the hearing, the IFC ap
proved OSPIRG’s budget re
quest of $95,537.28 by a 5 to 2
vote.
IFC member Ron Munion,
who voted against funding
OSPIRG, contended that
OSPIRG is a primarily political
organization. Because of restric
tions placed on the use of in
cidental fee money, it can not
use incidental fees for any
political activites, he said.
Any funding for lobbying or
political activities comes from a
seperate account, said OSPIRG
State Board Chair Maureen
Kirk. IFC-allocated funds are
used strictly in an educational
manner and are important to the
cultural and physical develop
Turn to IFC, Page 4
Frohnmayer addresses issues
surrounding incidental fee use
By Scott Maben
Of the Kmtrild
Oregon Attorney General Dave
Krohnmayer reiterated opinions issued from
his office in lU8!j on whether student inciden
tal fees should fund politically active groups
on a Thursday evening visit to the University.
His lecture, sponsored by the College
Republicans, came as a heated first week of
University budget hearings on distribution of
next year's fees drew to a close.
Krohnmayer began by offering a short
background on the Oregon student fees
statutes and how students in the early 70s
gained control of distributing incidental fees.
"This issue is one that poses some signifi
cant and interesting challenges to us as at
torneys and as constitutional lawyers, and I
know obviously that it is and has been a
politically volatile issue on this campus for
many years." Krohnmayer said.
The bulk of Krohnmayer's address focused
on questions about the incidental fees statute,
which states that the fees can be levied from
students for programs that are "advantageous
to the cultural or physical development of
students."
State Representative harry Campbell and
Bill Leinman, vice chancellor of the State
Board of Higher Education, originally brought
the issue of incidental fee usage to
Krohnmayer's attention in l‘)8f>. The questions
arose from student concern at campuses across
Oregon. In response. Krohnmayer's office
published the opinions on which he based his
lecture.
The question dominating the lecture ask
ed whether incidental fees can fund groups
that advocate through expenditures of those
funds positions on current Oregon ballot
measures, legislation before the assembly, ad
ministrative rules or policies of state or federal
agencies, or issues before state or federal
J
Dave Frohnmayer
tribunals.
Concerning ballot measures, “The answer
is no. That's really a corrupt practice under
Oregon law. These are public funds and public
funds cannot be used to advocate lor or against
the measure,” Frohnmayer said.
For the other situations Frohnmayer said
the basic answer bis office came to "was really
one of statutory instruction, that is, the fees
have to 1m; deemed to be to the cultural or
Turn to Frohnmayer, Page 13
Extension of seatbelt law could save money and lives
By Shawn Wirtz
Of the Emerald
Some people have a hard time
restraining themselves when it
comes to discussing mandatory
seat belt use, an issue that
divides civil libertarians and
public safety advocates and
creates a rift across which op
ponents often hear only echos of
their own arguments.
“It blows me away. I can real
ly hardly believe it’s as emo
tional as it is," said Sandra
Flicker, the coalition director of
Oregon Traffic Safety Now.
This session opponents will
take up arms again in the
Legislature to defeat Senate Bill
87, which would extend the
state law requiring passengers
under 16 to wear seat belts to in
clude adult drivers and
passengers.
A similar bill, SB 355, passed
the Senate 19-11 in the 1985
session, but the House blocked
its passage 30-28. The 1977
Legislature also repealed a law
that required motorcyclists to
wear helmets, an issue op
ponents consider parallel to the
seat-belt law.
The Senate Transportation
Committee will hold hearings
on SB 87 soon, and Chair
woman Jane Cease, D-Portland.
expects the bill to come out of
committee virtually intact, she
said.
Supporters expect a January
report issued by OTSN to be
their best weapon in getting the
legislation passed. Cease said.
(iraphic. by Ixirraine Kuth
Based on the increase in
usage of seat belts in Hawaii,
Connecticut and California after
they implemented similar laws,
the coalition projected a
“conservative” estimated in
crease in the compliance rate
from :t4 percent to 55 percent.
A compliance rate of 55 per
cent in 1985 would have saved
an estimated 45 lives, and
would have prevented 1.463
moderate to critical and 63 1
minor injuries, according to the
report.
"The moral part of this issue
is the fact that these seat belts
save lives," Flicker said "We
are losing far too many to traffic
fatalities. It's something that
can’t be ignored any longer."
While seat belt use among
passengers under tin? age of 16
has increased from 28 percent to
67 percent since the law was in
stituted in 1985, "I don’t think
we’ve seen a reduction in
fatalities," Flicker admitted.
"Kids are still dying in cars,"
she said, but mainly "because
of the increased traffic due to
Expo."
Rather than focus discussion
on the emotional issue of
violent traffic fatalities,
however, supporters emphasize
the economic costs. If this tact is
cold, it also may be the best way
Turn to Seatbelt, Page 6