100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

November 12, 1971 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1971-11-12

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.


mir2%igan t F Bat
Eighty-one years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

Campus election recommendations.S..

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1971

NIGHT EDITOR: CARLA RAPOPORT

The referenda
The funding proposals

STUDENT GOVERNMENT Council is by
no means an institution without
flaws. The present administration of
Council has been weak and ineffective.
And in the past, there have been occas-
ional instances of SGC mishandling funds
under its control.
It is important, however, for students
at the University to have a strong, repre-
sentative student government to voice
their concerns and guard their interests.
Because a viable SGC is important to
the student body, we urge a No vote on
the referendum proposal to abolish SGC
funding by ending the 25-cents per stu-
dent allotment Council gets from student
fees each term.
It has been suggested that eliminating
SGC funding might expedite student gov-
ernment reform. But this argument is
specious. For elimination of funding
would not simply precipitate a crisis for
the present government, but would para-
lyze any government that might grow out
of the reform.
BELIEVE there are a number of ex-
cellent candidates running in this
election who have the intelligence, imag-
ination and dedication to make SGC into
an effective and responsible instrument
for student power and involvement. With
9 out of 12 at-large seats up for election,
the winners have the potential to remake,
15GC and to wake it from its lethargy.
It is with this hope in mind that we
recommend a "Yes" vote on the refer-
endum to increase the Council allotment
to 85 cents per student each term. This
60-cent increase would allow an invig-
orated SGC to have the funds to initiate
a number of excellent projects.
With new representatives on Council,
a new SGC administration in the near

future and close public scrutiny, we be-
lieve that these funds would be spent
wisely for the purposes intended.
AS TO THE allocation of the new funds,
we support the proposals for establishing
a women's crisis center, a cooperative gro-
cery store, a child care center, low-cost
housing, a recycling center and an in-
depth consumer report.
Obviously' the 60-cent increase could
not pay for all of these projects, but the
added funds could provide seed money
and an indication of support from the
student body on these issues.
However, we suggest a "No" vote on
the proposal to spend money to establish
an academic chair for teaching present-
ly unavailable courses.
* * *
ALTHOUGH WE strongly believe in an
all-campus , representative govern-
ment, we do not belittle the need for the
efforts of school and college govern-
ments in proviidng independent, effec-
tive, decentralied representation in their
respective units.
Unfortunitely, several of these gov-
ernments are on the verge of dying.
They are dying from a lack of student
interest - a situation to which their lack
of funds has no doubt contributed. With-
out money, they have been able to gain
little publicity, and to pursue even less
programs. And lobbying alone is not very
visible.
To give them a chance to be effective,
therefore, we believe it necessary to fund
these governments beyond what they can
beg from deans and executive commit-
tees. Thus, we urge a "yes" vote on the
proposal to fund each school and college
government with an allocation of 50 cents
per term.

Recommended
JOEL SILVERSTEIN, an incumbent running with
the Radical People's Party, appears to be the best
candidate for charting SGC's somewhat ques-
tionable future. He is not only aware of SGC's
problems, but he has specific ideas about what to
do about them.
Ultimately, he would like to increase student
lobbying power through means other than SGC,
and will work for the development of a voluntary
union' of students to represent all campus opinion.
He is also experienced, and during his term on
Council has demonstrated his capability to handle
a position on SGC creatively and effectively. He
has been a hard worker in establishing the Tem-
porary Employes Association and was instrumental
in expanding the SGC bail fund.
In using his ability, he is not only interested in
changing SGC, but is willing to work toward some-
what lesser goals. He is an active proponent of
community service projects for which students
have shown support. Central among these is his
concern for the establishment of a 24-hour child
care center. Thus, he combines a number of quali-
ties necessary in the near future on SGC.
MICHAEL DAVIS, a GROUP candidate with vast
experience throughout the University, is a candi-
date whose proven talents would be extremely
valuable in moving SGC out of its current inac-
tivity.
A former SGC member at large, SGC adminis-
trative vice president, and member of Central
Student Judiciary Davis' six years as a teaching
fellow here have been permeated with significant
contributions to the student governments of all
kinds.
He is known for writing the SGC Student Bill
of Rights, drafting student government constitu-
tions, and for being instrumental in the formation
of the fledgling Rackham Student Government.
He is running again for SGC because he is
acutely aware of its present shortcomings, and of
the declining student interest that has accom-
panied it. He intends to use his vast organiza-
tional knowledge to "put SGC's house in order."
To do this he hopes to expand the various Coun-
cil committees and to increase student involve-
ment in SGC.
Since SGC's current administrators have proven
themselves somewhat unable to deal with these
problems so far during their terms, these talents
are needed badly.
Davis is charged with being behind the times,
but he has never ceased his involvement with
University politics during his time off SGC, and

has not lost touch with the problems and interests
of students.
In essence, his election would be a significant
contribution to the revitalization of SGC.
ARLENE GRIFFIN, another incumbent candidate
running with the Radical People's Party, has prov-
en her ability as an. advocate for badly-needed
student and community services. Though rather
reticent during the early part of her term on
Council, her recent leadership in the establishment
of the Women's Crisis Center is indicative of the
improvement she has made.
With her articulatenes and forcefulness, she
will no doubt be effective in pressing her excellent
program, which includes a student-sponsored food
co-operative, the severance of ROTC from the
University, a 24-hour child care center, increased
funding for SGC, and further support for the
women's Crisis Center.
In short, she is willing and able to work on
Council, and will be valuable in moving SGC be-
yond its now frequent bickering and political in-
fighting.
DAVID BURLESON, a sophomore running on
the Community Party ticket, is a highly unusual
candidate whose talent would complement the
other recommended candidates.
Though not particularly radical, he has an un-
usually keen sense of the workings of the Uni-
versity, and of the channels through which change
can be effected. And though not a standard politi-
cal organizer, he is an extraordinarily tireless
worker who would unquestionably donate a great
deal of time and energy to SGC.
Finally, he has long been concerned with the
financial affairs of the University, and would
no doubt help prevent the wastefulness that has
sometimes marked SGC activity. He does not
presently support the .increased funding for SGC,
but would no doubt see that it was used efficient-
ly if it were passed.
Acceptable
JOHN KOZA is a graduate student in computer
science who is running on the GROUP ticket.
On campus since 1961, he would bring increased
graduate representation to SGC-which has been
predominantly composed of undergraduates for
several years. A veteran of student government
activity at the University, Koza has gained im-
portant insight into the workings and malfunc-
tions of student representative bodies.
Koza has been criticized for having no political
views and for being obsessed with the semi-
annual elections, having coordinated the com-
puterized ballot counting in the last five SGC
elections. However, he is a staunch defender of
democratic student government and civil liberties,
and has worked hard at drafting student govern-
ment constitutions that reflect these views.
He has sound, reasonable plans that could move
SGC in the direction others have talked about for
years. He would be a good addition to Council.
BOB NELSON, a member of the GROUP party
and a first-year law student, was a member of
SGC for two of his undergraduate years. Although
his record was one of moderation, he was a hard
worker for causes he supported - including the
drive by SGC for a campus discipline system that
would be fair to students.
Since leaving Council last spring, Nelson appears
to have deepened his sense of political awareness.
If he avoids his past affinity for laborious debates
on procedure and parliamentary technicalities, he

Over the past seven months, it has become in-
creasingly apparent that the present form and
structure of student government at the University
is sorely lacking. Doubts about Council's viability
have been expressed in the past, but they are sub-
stantially heightened by the ineffectiveness of the
present SGC administration, the relative passivity
of Council members, and the resignation of one-
third of SGC last month-
Even in interviewing the 23 candidates in next
week's election, one is disappointed by the general
lack of outstanding individuals and new ideas.
However, because of the resignations in October,
students have a unique opportunity to fill nine of
the eleven at-large SGC seats and drastically alter
the hesitant, half-hearted drift of the present
Council.
With this in mind, we have recommended a group
of candidates that could bring to SGC a clear pro-
gram for increasing Council's capability as a stu-
dent government, effecting needed reforms within
the University, and expanding SGC's services to
students. These candidates, and five others we
found acceptable, are promising enough for us to
urge students to do what we've consistently asked
students to do in the past-go out and vote.
would add strength to Council, and be a respon-
sible voice on questions involving allocations of
SGC funds.
ART NISHIOKA, a literary college sophomore and
a member of the People's.Coalition, appears com-
mitted to speaking for Asians and other minorities
that have always been sorely underrepresented on
SGC.
Unfortunately, his knowledge of the University's
structure and the workings of SGC is seriously
lacking. But he is certain to provide Council with
input valuable enough to outweigh his lack of
background.
In addition, as a People's Coalition candidate, he
supports efforts toward the abolishment of ROTC
and the elimination of on-campus classified re-
search.
MARTY SCOTT, a senior in the Residential College
who is running on they GROUP slate, is a past
president of SGC. He has had much experience
within SGC and in dealing with the University
administrative structure.
Scott's experience and progressive platform,
however, are offset by his lackluster performance
as president during 1969-70. Nonetheless, he has
since remained active in campus politics, serving
on the Committee for a permanent Judiciary and
the Residential College Representative Assembly.
While there is a possibility of another ineffective
term on Scott's part, with his credentials he may
prove a valuable member-at-large away from the
responsibilities of the presidency.
BOB GARRITY is a freshman who demonstrates
unusually mature knowledgep about University af-
fairs. He recognizes that Council has been hurt by
factionalism in the past, and wishes to focus
SGC's efforts on increasing the involvement of
its generally apathetic student constituency.
To this end, he plans to increase SGC contacts
with students by making frequent visits to dormi-
tories, an oft-repeated but admirable theme.
With his knowledge, sincerity, and ideas he has
the potential to develop into a fine member of
Council.
The panel that evaluated the candidates for SGC
included: Rose Sue Berstein, Lindsay Chaney, Mark
Dillen. Jim Kevra, Arthur Lerner, Tony Schwartz,
Gloria Jane Smith, and Paul Travis.

4

fi

y

Recall Brad Taylor

WE URGE a "yes" vote on the Recall
Brad Taylor referendum. Yet we do
not do this because we disagree w i t h
Taylor's political beliefs. We quite clearly
disagree with Taylor's very conservative
approach to campus government, but we
have no quarrel with his right to repre-
sent his views on Student Government
Council.
Instead, our concern with Taylor's right
to remain in office stems from his demon-
strated willingness to testify before the
House Internal Security Committee
(HISC) concerning the People's Peace
Conference held in Ann Arbor. This was
an act which worked in direct opposition
to student interests here.
HISC is not a committee designed to
produce legislation, as are most other
congressional committees. In its entire
existence, neither it nor its predeces-
sor, HUAC, has produced anything of note
besides the Internal Security Act--
which has since been declared uncon-
stitutional. ,
Instead, it is merely an intelligence
wing of the federal government, designed
to intimidate the public from engaging
in political activities opposed by t h a t
government. It does nothing more than
compile dossiers which are then used to
defame character, determine whom t h e
government will put under surveillance,

and otherwise undermine the Fourth
Amendment rights of citizens.
In testifying before this group, there-
fore, Taylor helped the committee intimi-
date people here, thus jeopardizing stu-
dents' abilities to associate freely with
all political groups and views.
TAYLOR ARGUES that he was forced to
testify before the committee. This
may be true. But if Taylor really objected
to testifying, he would not have provided
HISC with the wealth of pictures, leaf-
lets, copies of newspapers and verbal
testimony he did. Obviously, he did not
testify simply because he could not refuse
to do it, but because he was quite willing
and eager to testify.
All political officials should be held
accountable to their constituencies. And
insofar as Taylor has demonstrated a
clear tendency to disregard the interests
of students here, we believe he should not
be allowed to continue as an SGC mem-
ber.
Recall is a means to reconsider an
election, and is the proper procedure to
remove an office-holder. When an offic-
ial willingly commits acts as repugnant
and reprehensible as turning over in-
formaiton to government snooping agen-
cies of questionable legality, then it is
proper to use it.
Thus, we urge the recall of Brad Taylor.

W

SGC procedures

Not recommended
DALE OESTERLE, a graduate student
in public policy planning, is running on
the GROUP ticket and is also a former
SGC member. During his 1%/ years on
Council, Oesterle distinguished himself
by compiling an extraordinary conserva-
tive voting record on fiscal matters. Al-
though he seems to have liberalized some
of his opinions in recent months, he is
still basically a political moderate and a
fiscal conservative.
To be sure, Oesterle has done commend-
able work on the possible establishment of
a Student Consumer Union - his inter-
ests seem to lie in consumer issues. How-
ever, he still maintains a relatively pas-
sive attitude toward striving for structural
improvements in SGC.
And we fear that this passive appioach
would render him unable to do anything
more to bolster Council that he has in the
past.
PHIL CHERNER, a senior running as an
independent, seeks the abolition of SGC
and delegation of its responsibilities to the
Office of Student Services Policy Board.
However, he has not worked out enough
details of his drastic restructuring of stu-
dent government, and he seems to be using
his platform as a gimmick to avoid con-
fronting other pressing University issues.
It is true that Cherner has experience
in University activities and would bring
understanding of campus issues to SGC.
He also speaks in favor of ending military
research and increasing student represen-
tation within the University.
But his emphasis on a single fabricated
issue in his campaign make his sincerity
as a candidate questionable.
FRED GORDIN, an unsuccessful candi-

primarily concerned with such projects as
providing cheaper coffee in the UGLI.
JEAN TESHIMA believes that SGC
should take a politically-active role on
campus and should take steps to fund a
low cost food co-op. Although we find her
political goals as a member of the Peo-
ple's Coalition slate admirable, she lacks
any concrete plans to implement those
goals-and is likely to have the same in-
effectiveness that many past Council
members have had.
MAT DUNASKIS, a junior transfer stu-
dent from Oakland Community College,
has had experience in student government
at that institution. Nevertheless, he is
poorly acquainted with the activities,
structure, and function of a student gov-
ernment at an institution the size of the
University.
He believes SGC should restrict itself
primarily to providing services for stu-
dents and is less inclined toward actions
that would bring student views to bear
on University decisions. Yet even his desire
for increased student services istsuspect,
for he supports the referendum to. elimi-
nate funding. of SGC-in order to give
Council a "good rap in the knuckles."
Furthermore, he finds the presence of
ROTC and classified research at the Uni-
versity acceptable, an attitude with which
we strongly disagree.
ALLISON STIEBER, a third semester
sophomore running with the Radical.Peo-
ple's Party, has very little knowledge
of how the University functions. She seems
adept at mouthing traditional left-wing
rhetoric without coming forth with truly
substantive ideas.
She has been to one Council meeting in
her two years at the University, which
indicates something less than familiarity
with SGC operations. She emphasizes that

Though he seems
ler impresses us as a
running mate. He
Council.

P

well-intentioned, Hil-
weak reflection of his
would add little to

THE PROPORTIONAL representation
amendment would extend the trans-
ferable ballot system-now used only in
presidential voting-to the voting for at-
large positions as well.
Under the system, each voter would
cast his votes for candidates in order of
preference. In counting the ballots, then,
only the first preference ballots would
be counted on the first round. To win,
if there were six candidates running, for
example, a candidate would need only one
sixth of these votes.
The most serious effect, will be to mute
the power of minority blocks of votes
that have in the past been able to elect
large numbers of candidates by effec-.
tive grouping of their votes when the
rest of the electorate was badly split.

Thus, we urge a "yes" vote on this ref-
erendum.
* * *
THE CONSENT of the governed referen-
dum is essentially a restatement of
part of the SGC constitution, and is
largely intended to criticize the forma-
tion of Graduate Federation (GF). We
support it as a criticism, since we believe
GF to be anunrepresentative coalition of
graduate schools governments conceived
by apologists for the administration.
Thus, we urge a "yes" vote on this
referendum as an affirmation of stu-
dent's dedication to democratically con-
stituted structures created by student
vote as the only acceptable form of stu-
dent government.
THE SPECIAL REFERENDA proposal-

TIM DONAHUE, a sophomore running
partly out of "curiosity," believes SGC has
shown too strong a ,liberal bias." He calls
himself a moderate and regrets that mod-
erates at the University come off as con-
servatives. He certainly does.
He maintains very vague, almost in-
tangible views of what a student govern-
ment should accomplish, speaking in pla-
titudes about the "youth of today," his
estrangement from the University," and
the "nature of our times." Nowhere can
we find concrete proposals for implement-
ing those services he believes SGC can pro-
vide.
Furthermore, he takes the position that
SGC should simply convey student views to
the University administration, and not
try to further them if it encounters oppo-
sition.

SGC as an apolitical student service group
render them clearly unacceptable Council
candidates.
DAN MARTINKO, an independent, is
running with the worthy goal of influenc-
ing the State Legislature to provide the
University with enough funds to forestall
future tuition raises. But his plans for
writing letters to legislators and holding
conferences with the Regents to plan a
campaign at the Legislature are unrealis-
tic.
His view of himself merely as a puppet,
of -student opinion as expressed in campus-
wide referenda would make him an inef-
fectual Council member when forced to
think for himself.
GRAHAM MOSES is an independent
candidate running on a platform of
"apathy." His constituents, he says, are
the students who don't bother to vote. He
might make an interesting Council mem-
ber, but don't go to the trouble of voting

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan