EDITORIAL EMU board needs freedom from IFC The Incidental Fee Committee and the F.MU Board of Directors have dashed repeatedly during the past two years. At issue is the method the IFC uses to allocate stu dent funds to the EMU. Right now. the IFC leadership is trying to exercise increased control over the operations of the EMI' board. Rather than simply distribute money based on the EMU budget committee’s recommendations, which is what tin; University administration originally intended sever al years ago. some IFC committee momlxirs want to have veto power over individual items within the budget. In other words, if the IFC doesn’t believe Oregon Club Sports or the FIMI) Craft Center is using student money effectively, il would restrict the program’s use of student money without asking the EMU board. In essence, the IFC would use Its budget authority to control EMU pro grams. The EMU board would be unnecessary. Lost week. University President Myles Brand'pro posed restructuring the relationship between the IFC and the EMIL Essentially. Ho wants to bypass the IFC’s role in the EMU budget. Instead of submitting a budget for IFC Chairman Stove Masat and friends to review, the EMU board would send its budget directly to the ASI JO Executive, which would then send it to Brand. The solution is a good one — it puts the IFC back in its proper place and keeps EMU authority intact. The IFC was never meant to be the sole governing body of student government, which is what Masat seems to be pushing for. He argues that the IFC best represents student interests, and the EMU board allows adminis trators to unjustly influence control of student money. His argument would have merit if the EMU board entirely comprised faculty or staff. However, the board contains only four faculty fnembers, none of whom will bo allowed to vote on budget items. The remaining 11 members of the board are students — including 1FC members Manat and Lydia Lerma. As Vice Provost Ger ard Moseley said. "This is a transfer of authority of stu dent fees from one student group to another.” By trying to control the EMU's use of student money, the IFC leadership is guilty of petty political posturing and power-grabbing. The EMy board is more familiar with EMU operations than the IFC, and thus is more qualified to distribute money among EMU programs. The IFC. simply because it has the authority to allocate student funds, does not have the right to micro manage groups, including the EMU board, the athletic depart ment or campus publications. This was made explicit in Brand's memo. He said the IFC may not exercise control over the affairs of the EMU board, and "it should not seek to do so under any form of subterfuge or by intimidation Quito simply, that would give too much power to one group on campus. Certainly students should have power over the use of student fees, but allowing one group to have all of the power is excessive. Brand's plan would send a message to future IFC lead ers that the group must work within the student gov ernment system, not rise above it. Oregon Daily Emerald I J .lC.O The Oregon D«r Em«#a >• pubkahad JeUy Mxxla, tniough Friday du/mg me *choo< ,es> and Tuaaday and Thursday during Ihe summer By me Oegon Daily Emerald Pubkshmg Co Inc at me llnrv«ri.?> o' Oegon. Eugene. Oegon The Emwau operates independently o< me University w«m o"oe» « Su«e 300 o' me Elb Memorial Lm*on and >» a member ol mo Associated Pie** The Eme*aid «* pnvale property The unlawful remove 01 u*e ol papa's e prosecutable By la* Hew* Editor Editorial Editor Qraptilc* Editor Entertainment Editor Editor P*t Matacn J*e Berg Freelance Editor Hope Meel*on Martin F oner Editorial Editor Rarer* Jansaen Jeff Pasiay Sports Editor Dove Charbonneau Freys Horn Supplement* Edrtor Calley Anderson Night Editor Chestei Alan Associate Editors; Tammy Batey Student Oovernment Actrvte*. Oaraiyn Trapp*. Commwnrfy. Co»**n Pohkg. t*gtier EdBcenorvAdmm*tr*non News StsW: Scon Andrs. CBeeler A**n. Malt Bender ju**n Brown, Sara* Clark. Dylan CouNer. fctog DadcSpn. Amy Davenport. Amanda Farme. Ta>aaa Muntsmger. Lisa Knee**. I its Mauri Demiwi McLean. Rebecca Merritt. Steve M.m» T.ttm. Muadar Tnsta Noel, Msmew Sc truster. E*WI Shaw Mchaal StwvSer. Enck Sluderwfca. Moron Sudor. Men** TBompaon-Aguiar, Amy Van Tuyl. Todd Wdfcams Qanaral Manager Judy R-odl Production Manager: Menem Roi* Advertising Tom Leocn. Sharon Vaj. Sale* Manager* Shawn Server- 0*c* Manager Jw*a kola. Tar*M Isabeae Prwp John*on II. Cn,* Kanoll. Jeremy Mason Van V CTByran II. G*an Oh, Rachael Tru*. Ange Wmcmeen Brian Wrvmevn Classified: Peggy McGinn. Manager Barry Logan Sharon Sauve Distribution: Rebecca Brook*. Kraft Van Gorder. Anthony Wynn Business: Kalhy Carbone Supervisor JixJy Connolly Production: Ingrrd While ProOurtKn CoonSnakv Knstme Grange* Dee McCobb. Slacy Mrtchen Jennifer Roland. Jenniler Sm.m, Ann# Stephenson Nuwaroom___jaS-SStl Display Advertising-MS-3T12 Business Office__3TS-MII Ctasafhed Advertising >*S-«»43 WfttCN First* CONGRESS WNTW6 K60M % «#*-#* W V*v. A >*H*n COMMENTARY Make your voice heard in Salem By Ryan P Decker t I just arrived hack in Kugene. 1 spent my time away speaking with members of the Oregon Legislature about funding for the University. 1 concluded from my conversations that for higher education to In* onui a valued investment in Ore denied the chance ui furthering their educations. Oregon is making a grave public policy decision to mortgage its future, and for what? What do we gain by denying our voung the chance of n better future? Students from other states might be able to take up some of the slack, but at what cost to Ore gon7 gon s intrastrui lure, som* atti iu