CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541) 346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald
E-MAIL P.O.BOX 3159
ode@oregon. uoregon.edu Eugene, Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: www.uoregon.edu/~ode
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Teri i Meeuwsen
Twice a week, the Emerald
editorial board meets to
decide upon the official
position of the newspa
per. These meetings are usually
calm — a list of topics is present
ed, ideas are tossed out and the
board reaches a consensus.
Not Sunday. On Sunday, the
board tackled the measures on the
ASUO general election ballot. We
shouted, squabbled and formed
an opinion by vote rather than by
consensus.
This is not an indication that it
was a particularly bad day.
Rather, it suggested these were es
pecially important issues. We all
agree incidental fees need to be
brought under control. Unfortu
nately, we don't all agree on how.
Depending on how you vote, your
ballot could help perpetuate the
rising cost of college or it could
take a stand against spending —
at the cost of worthwhile pro
grams.
After much contemplation and
a small amount of contempt, here
are the Emerald recommenda
tions for the 10 ballot measures:
1) OSPIRG funding: No recom
mendation.
As a whole, we support many
of the programs that OSPIRG is
associated with and think the
group represents a vital opportu
nity for many students. We also
have concerns about the amount
of money OSPIRG receives — al
most $150,000 — and the places
that money goes. (A story about
the OSPIRG budget and the
group’s on-campus opponents
will run Tuesday in the Emerald.)
Complaints have centered on
OSPIRG’s failure to issue a line
item budget. We worry that,
while legitimate, these com
plaints would not be addressed
by a “no” vote on the OSPIRG
measure. Instead, our belief is
that your vote should be decided
by whether you think OSPIRG
provides necessary services to
x-mrwv.w-x*!»
Student programs,
students’ pockets
AN EMERALD EDITORIAL
The Emerald editorial board struggled to find a balance between
controlling fees and maintaining services when deciding on its
ASUO ballot measure recommendations
students and the community, in
light of their large budget.
Those who support OSPIRG
note the importance of many of
the group’s causes and the educa
tional benefit for students that
comes from participating in a
public interest group. Opponents
suggest the large percentage of
money that goes to pay salaries of
professional, non-student person
nel is troublesome. Additionally,
they note that, while admirable,
OSPIRG’s programs do not seem
especially important to students
compared to other campus
groups that receive a fraction of
the organization’s funding.
2) Continue current funding for
United States Student Associa
tion: Yes.
3) Increase funding for USSA:
Yes.
For 83 cents a term, increased
funding for USSA would allow
the group to help train ASUO offi
cials to work with local, state and
national legislators on behalf of
students as well as continue to
support national pro-student ef- .
forts. Given that next year is an
Oregon legislative session and
that national and local efforts to
cut financial aid and freeze tu
ition have been important issues
recently, the need for USSA sup
port is clear.
We would like to see this issue
reconsidered next year, however,
when there will be no upcoming
session. The ASUO should have
to demonstrate that the increased
funding proved useful and that
training did allow student offi
cials to help fee-paying students.
4) LTD service: No recommen
dation.
While bus service is vital for
many students, it is irrelevant for
many more. The cost — almost $7
per term — is high for a service
some of us will use no more than
once or twice per year. Of course,
some students rely on bus service
to get to work, campus or home
and cannot afford a regular bus
pass. The cost of student bus ser
vice used to be optional; students
could receive a fee refund if they
did not want the bus pass. That
option was eliminated, however,
creating the current situation in
which LTD and the students who
ride it are subsidized by student
fees. If you think that service is
important to you or the Universi
ty community, you should vote
yes. If you don’t want to spend
the money, vote no.
5) Seven-day Designated Driver
Shuttle service: Yes.
10) Additional DDS van: No.
Both of these are difficult
choices. We certainly support the
concept of DDS — the safety of all
students and the Eugene commu
nity is threatened if drunk stu
dents drive themselves home.
Therefore, it makes sense to run
the service seven days a week.
Unfortunately, as this service be
comes increasingly popular the
fee associated with it will in
evitably rise, leaving University
students helping to pay for the
partying habits of a few.
Our suggestion, therefore, is
that rejection of the new van
would be an important step in
forcing DDS to rely more on
fundraising and donations from
passengers and less upon the in
cidental fee. The group has al
ready managed to successfully
raise some money for earlier pur
chases.
6) EMU elevator Yes.
This is a no-brainer, but it still
makes us angry. As we have stat
ed in earlier editorials, this issue
should have been addressed a
long time ago, when building ren
ovation was first being consid
ered and the ASUO Executive
was pushing for amphitheater
construction. Nevertheless, the
elevator is necessary in order to
comply with federal law.
This issue is a good example of
why controlling incidental fees is
not as simple as slashing wasteful
student programs. Students will
be forced to pay $7.35 per term to
prevent lawsuits under the Amer
ican Disabilities Act — expen
sive, yes; avoidable, yes; but prob
ably not the fault of this year’s
Executive.
7) Extend EMU lower level
hours: No.
The primary purpose of this
measure is to allow access to the
EMU Computing Center later at
night. While this is an admirable
goal, the center has said it will not
be able to guarantee extended
hours unless the state legislature
passes an education technology
funding measure. As this is hard
ly guaranteed given the political
tendencies of Oregon’s legisla
ture, we cannot endorse spending
student money on what might be
a wasted effort.
8) Prevent EMU board from
placing measures on the ballot:
Yes.
There is no reason a board with
a large administrative component
should have the power to create
ballot measures. The Student
Senate and signature-collecting
individuals both, rightly, have
this power. It is only by a quirk of
the ASUO constitution that the
board was ever granted this abili
ty — the board doesn't need it
and shouldn’t have it.
9) Block multiple-year inciden
tal fee authorization except by
ballot: prevent multiple-year
funding that exceeds two years:
No.
It makes sense to reject funding
allocations that allow groups and
services to function for multiple
years without ongoing student or
ASUO approval. This would pre
vent wasteful practices from go
ing unchecked. The problem with
this measure is that it would
make funding of building and
renovation projects impossible.
For example, the ongoing
changes to Esslinger Hall re
quired a multiple-year ballot
measure that exceeded two years.
Securing loans, hiring contrac
tors and making plans for nearly
any construction project would
be almost impossible if funding
for the project relied upon ongo
ing student approval. This mea
sure would either prevent such
projects or require students to pay
a massive one-time fee for the
project — something that proba
bly wouldn’t receive student ap
proval.
This editorial represents the opinion
of the Emerald editorial board. Re
sponses may be sent to ode@ore
gon.uoregon.edu
rVn AW/T\Tr
Endangered
plants ON earth
non- Endangered
Plants on earth
OUf* NEW $1\lpy lf40KATE5 A
Grave ftxumo* danger
TO US. CQAiTLINE5„
..and were 6©*46w Do $omsihin6
A&out it whEm Wf FNMOIME