Editorial
Changes needed with
write-in election rule
According to ASUO election rules, a write-in candidate
who receives three votes or more in primary elections is con
sidered a valid candidate. This occurred in last week’s elec
tions, and we believe this election rule should be revised.
If there is more than twice the number of candidates as
there are available seats in primary elections, then exactly
twice the number of candidates to open seats go on to the
general election. There were exactly six candidates running
for three one-year Incidental Fee Committe positions this
year, and the top three candidates normally would have
been elected.
Hut when one of the write-in candidates for the IFC
received three votes, the original six candidates found
themselves i n the general election. Clearly, there is
something wrong when one candidate with just three votes
can send twice tin; number of candidates than open posi
tions on to the general election.
The issue is whether write-in candidates with three
votes should be considered valid candidates — we don't
believe they should. Currently, it is too easy to abuse! this
three-vote rule. For example, in the case of last week's IFC
elec tion. it would have been simple; for one! of the* candidates
to ask a few friends to write someone! in, thereby forcing the
six candidates to the* general election.
A more equitable rule; would base the; validity of a write
in candidate on a percentage of total votes cast. Something
like; Tj percent seemis reasonable. This would make it harder
for someone to round up friends to e;ast write-in votes.
Moreover, changing the! current write-in rule! would remove
campus ejections from the; specter of election fraud.
Relief could be at hand
if Senate Bill 400 passes
With the problem of funding higher education and
related campus activities plaguing universities and colleges
throughout the state. Senate Hill 400 comes as a welcome
piece of legislation.
Tim bill would allow higher education institutions to
receive the interest earned on incideutakstudent and health
service fees. Currently, interest earned through student and
health service fees is deposited in the State Ceneral Fund.
This revenue, estimated at $170,000, would be
distributed proportionately to institutions on the basis of
their cash balances.
The bill stipulates that student governments will have
authority over which student groups receive these funds. In
the case of the University, the Incidental Fee Committee
more than likely would distribute this revenue because it is
the committee that allocates incidental student fees.
At a time when the l Jniversity and Oregon State l Jniver
sity face tin; possibility of being removed from the Pacific 10
Conference, this hill may come as a lifesaver. Moreover,
other campus groups undoubtedly would gain from this bill
as well.
The hill now goes to the House. If the Senate’s popular
approval of this hill is a yardstick to measure how it will fare
in the House, chances are that it will pass with no problem.
No doubt this woud be good news for student groups on
campus.
tZMZF
[ir t+S7 **ri*l> c«
" DR.KOOR LET'S JUST KEEP IT ABOUT SMOKING!”
Letters
SPA care
Thu Child Care and Develop
ment Center Parent Counc il has
met to discuss the ele< tions and
the* possible? impact on the pro
gram. and would like to pass on
the? following endorsements.
ballot Measure 0 would in
crease the CC1)C staff by one
and a quarter full-time posi
tions. enabling the program to
s »* t up and administer a
Westmoreland center, seek
private and public grant fun
ding. expand the current pro
gram. and improve staff train
ing in short, to make the ser
vices more accessible to student
parents.
The program serves approx
imately 2f>0 student families a
week, logging 4,000 child care
hours per week. The current
staff is running itself ragged try
ing to meet these needs, which
has historically resulted in a
high turnover of staff.
Concerning student elections,
we would like to lend our en
dorsement to the SPA can
didates. The Steve Nelson ad
ministration has bent over
backwards to improve child
care by setting up a Child ('are
Task Force to evaluate the pro
Oregon Daily
Emerald
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published Monday
through Friday except during exam week and vacations
by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co , at the
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403
The Emerald operates independently of the University
with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial Union
and is a member of the Associated Press
The Emerald is private property The unlawful removal
or use of papers is prosecutable by law
General Staff
Advertising Director Susan Thelen
Production Manager Wayne Michael lottmville
Classified Advertising Alyson Simmons
Assistant to the Publisher Jean Ownbey
Advertising Sales: Peter LaFleur / Sales Manager
Teresa Acosta, Beryl Israel, Janelle Heitmann, Laura
Goldstein, Catherine Lilia. Rick Mart?, Joseph Menzel.
Peter Miller, Joan Wilderrnuth
News and Editorial 686 5511
Display Advertising and Business 686 3712
Classified Advertising 686 4343
Letter Perfect Graphics 686 5511
Production 686 4381
Circulation 686 5511
Editor
Managing Editor
News Editor
Spectrum Editor
Spectrum Assistant Editor
Editorial Page Editors
Sports Editor
Photo Editor
Spectrum Photo Editor
Graphics Editor
Night Editor
Associate Editors
Community
Politics
Higher Education / Administration
University Affairs
Student Government
Student Activities
General Assignment
General Assignment
Michelle Brence
Lucinda Dillon
Michael Rivers
Stephen Maher
Stanley Nelson
Michael Drummond
Angie Muniz
Dennis Fernandes
Maria Corvallis
John Giustina
Lorraine Rath
B J. Thomsen
Janet Paulson
B J Thomsen
Chris Norred
Laurie Schwartz
Carolyn Lamberson
Sarah Kitchen
Alicia Gano
Scott Maben
Reporters: Jackie Barry. Mary Courtis. Gary Henley
Photographers: Sherlyn B|Orkgren, Shu-Shing Chen, Der
rel Hewitt. Tim Jones, Bobbie Lo. Dan Wheeler
Production: Michele Ross / Ad Coordinator
Kelly Alexandre. Ronwin Nicole Ashton, Virginia Bamaga.
Samantha Barbitta. Sandra Bevans. Sara Briscoe. Shu
Shing Chen, Janet Emery, Judith Gatz. Lisa Haggerty.
Donna Leslie, Curtis Lott Steve Lundgren Kelli Mason
Mike McGraw, Rob Miles. Angela Muniz Julie Paul. Ingnd
White, Michael Wilhelm Serena Williams, X Kang Xie
gram and establish recommen
dations for improvement.
Further, it has moved to
establish the task force as an
ongoing body composed of
students, student parents, facul
ty and administration to see that
these recommendations are car
ried out. The program is deeply
indebted to these individuals
and 1 have no doubt that the cur
rent SPA candidates will start
up where this year's executive
left off.
Jodie Mooney and Sarah
I.aehkar have expressed strong
support for student parents, and
we urge those concerned with
these issues to vote SPA today.
Mike YVieber
Clhild Can%. and Development
(Center
Parent Council
I have in my hands a letter
sent to all Club Sports par
ticipants by Glenn J. Jarrett. 1
was shocked by the letter due to
its gross inaccuracies, border
ing on the unethical.
Mr. Jarrett states that the SPA
controlled ASUO gave an
overall 2.3 percent budget in
crease to Club Sports for next
year.
The blame for not getting the
increase that Mr. Jarrett would
have preferred lies with the
EMU Board which has respon
sibility for the EMU budget re
quest. The IFC gave an overall 5
percent increase to the EMU,
totaling $ 1,369,846. How that
money is distrubuted between
the* EMU programs (including
Club Sports) is up to the EMU
Board.
Mr. Jarrett also states that the
ASUO gave themselves an 11
percent increase. While this
number may help Mr. Jarrett's
position, it is totally false. The
ASUO received a 1 percent in
crease, as they requested.
Mr. Jarrett asserts that the
Athletic Department, Club
Sports. Marching Band and the
Creeks are joining together to
take SPA out of student govern
ment. If there is any truth to
this. 1 have to wonder if it is
because they have been given
false information such as that
w h i c h Mr. | a r r e t t is
distributing.
Mr. Jarrett cites CSRI. as those
concerned with programs like
Club Sports. I certainly hope
Kasey Brooks puts a stop to
those people campaigning for
her with false and misleading
propaganda.
Gwen Koedel
Political science
Counseling
The ODE’s April 21 presenta
tion of Ballot Measure 10. con
cerning funding for the Univer
sity Counseling Center, seemed
incomplete and could have
been quite misleading.
What was not reflected in tin;
ODE editorial is that passage of
Measure 10 is needed to provide
funding for the continuation of
several counselor positions.
As stated in the ODE.
Measure 10 also seeks to change
the way the University Counsel
ing (.enter student fee is ad
ministered by making it a per
manent non-incidental fee
supervised by a joint student
faculty board.
This would not simply “form
a new layer of bureaucracy” as
suggested in the editorial;
rather, it would provide the
Counseling Center with the fun
ding necessary to offer
counselor positions for three
years.
Currently some staff are hired
on a one-year basis with their
positions being renewed only if
students vote for Counseling
Center funding each spring
Because of this, it is difficult to
retain experienced counselors
and to plan and offer services
that continue beyond one year.
Passage of Measure 10 would
enable the Counseling Center to
plan ahead, maintain continuity
of important programs and
keep experienced staff.
Heather Holland
Student