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