+4e S ti In9t
Eighty-Four Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
hard St., Ann Arbor, Mi. 48104 News Phone: 764-0552

Untangling the student government mess

I'

420 Mayr

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1974

UPI: Not on our p

As OF THIS issue, The Daily has de-
cided to boycott the Services of Unit-
ed Press International to support strik-
ing members of the Wire Services Guild.
Reporters and editors struck UPI Mon-
day, demanding a cost of living salary
increase, guaranteed job security for
workers affected by use of electronic ed-
iting equipment, and requirements that
all workers in Guild shops pay union
dues.
Presently, management personnel are
crossing Guild picket lines in Detroit and
all over the nation to put outsthe agen-
cy's copy on a reduced basis.
The Daily staff feels the use of scab-
produced copy is unethical, and we in-
tend not to use UPI copy until the con-
tract dispute ends.
The most offensive aspect of the ne-
gotiation is the insistence of the UPI
management that Guild workers accept

the 5.7 cost-of-living increase the- Asso-
ciated Press employes agreed to.
It is true that the two news services
are in direct competition, but AP em-
ployes were being paid comparable high-
er wages than the present UPI levels.
We are sending letters to all newspap-
ers who use UPI services and urge them
to join us in boycotting the use of this
scab copy and urge nationwide support, of
the strike.
TODAY'S STAFF:
News: Dan Biddle, Della di Pietro, R o b
Meachum, Sue Stephenson, Rebecca
Warner
Editorial Page: Brian Colgan, Cindy Hill,
Joan Weiss
Arts Page: Ken Fink, Mara Shapiro
Photo Technician: Thomas Gottlieb, Pau-
line Lubens

By KATHLEEN KOLAR
ON OCT. 19, 1973, the Regents
drafted a statement on Stu-
dent Governance at the University
of Michigan. Noting'that Student
Government Council's actions in
recent years had all too frequently
been characterized by ". . . fraud-
ulent elections, loose fiscal prac-
tices . .. and low student partici-
pation . . .," the Regents directed
Vice President for Student Serv-
ices Henry Johnson, to impanel
a broad spectrum of students, fa-
culty and staff consultants to study
the matter.
In compliance with the directive,
Johnson designed a commission
composed of 17 student from var-
ious organizations, eight staff re-
presentatives, and five faculty
members - all of whom have had
some background in student gov-
ernment.
At the Nov. 30 meeting, John-
son convened the Commission on
Student Governance (CSG), and ex-
plained that he had tried very
hard to obtain a cross-representa-
tion of the University community,
not just in constituencies, but in
attitudes and opinions. Several
controversial issues were raised
that day, as the commission at-
tempted to define itself more clear-
ly.
The first and most delicate prob-
lem involved the so-called "repre-
sentatives from the various stu-
dent organizations and groups.
Students who were serving were not
necessarily elected by the con-
stituency they supposedly would r:-
present. Very early in the dis-
cussion, however, members real-
ized that the problem had solved it-
self. Each of the members did in
fact express a variety of concerns
related to diverse interests.
In addition, unlike most other
University committees, minority
sudents interests were represent-
ed. When there two things became
evident, queasiness about repre-
sentation eased considerably.
THE COMMISSION then addres-
sed itself to studying the Regental
Statement, a challenging task. The
document was riddled with vague
and misleading statements about
Regental intent in setting un ;he
commission. In paragraph three,
the Statement specified that the
Regents ". . . do not wish to dic-
tate to the students the kind of
government they must have." Yet,
in paragraphs four and six, they
instructed CSG to do several things
to "reorganize" that student gov-
ernment, and further, taey ex-
pected progress toward a "new"
system by spring.
Other contradictions implied in
the "charges" of the Commission

were more apparent. The commis-
sion was at first directed to submit
a document reporting its findings
and recommendations tbout stu-
dent government on campus. Later
on in the document tho.ign, the Re-
gents seemed to call on CSG to
design a blueprint far a specific
failsafe model, complete with a
supportive philosophical founda-
tion. (Note the words "plan,' "re-
organize" "new . . . system").
Problems sprang up like leaks.
If CSG wrote and prepared a mod-
el, would it be foisted on the stu-
dents? What were the legal para-
meters of CSG or the Regents to
do this? Would this invalidate
SGC's constitution, or was it al-
ready, legally speaking, worthless?
CSG resolved both these ques-
tions by determining that it would
prepare a document with specific
guidelines, and possible, but not
necessarily, a specificv model (or
models) for reorganization to both
the Regents and the University
community for their scrutiny. It
was believed that acceptance of
any plan or model was contingent
on endorsement from both groups.
CSG declared itself autonomous
of the Regents for the duration of
the study, to avoid charges of
"fronting" for them. Finall;, it
was determined as a crucial prior-
ity that CSG explore in depth the
legal aspects of the SGC-Regent
relationship, and seek to explain
power dynamics as they presently
exist.
AFTER brainstorming the issue,
a plan insuring maximum usage if
each member's skills was deter-
mined, and myself (LSA) and Ron
Harris (Law School) were appoint-
ed co-chairpersons of the Commis-
sion.
At this point, a grinning student
raised the issue of faculty and
staff eligibility in CSG voting.
"Should the faculty and staff be
allowed more than 'inpuxt' on is-
sues which would help shapa im-
portant student governance pol-
icy?" The faculty reacted w i t h
nervous tittering and shit-eating
grins as students pondered t h e
query of their colleague.
After a witty tongue-in-chee.' de-
liberation, the students vroved both
generous and wise as they affirm-
ed the idea that both the diverse
experience and also the expertise
of the faculty and staff were inval-
uable, and that the Commission,
because of its size (and in spite
of its composition), could succe:s-
fully operate on. a consensus mad-
el.
HENRY JOHNSON stressed the
idea that the duty of the commis-
sion was not to examine specific

abuses of the SGC council; he stat-
ed that any specific abuses were
symptoms of the weak foundations
on which the notions of University
student government rests. Thos,
the Commission should examine
those foundations and the function-
ing of student government from an
analytical rather than a judicial
stance. Kathleen and Ron set the
first work session meeting for Dec.
14, and the second for Jan. 30,
1974.
AT THE JANUARY me.ting, I
recognized Johnson, who made an

1CSG: Explanation ofpurpose

interesting bid to the Commision.
He stated that a "couple of Re-
gents" had mentioned that an S(TC
elections at this time migat prove
a wasteful expenditure of she al-
ready . rock-bottom SGC funds.
Thus, Johnson asked if they ought
to recommend to the Regents tihat
there be a suspension of spring
elections.
The overwhelming sentiment of
the Commission was that this move
was wrong. "It is not within the
scope or powers of CSG to deal
with specific present hassles of
SGC, or become too involved as

arbitrators or henchmen of either
the Regents or SGC.
Our duty is to examine and make
recommendations on guidelines for
effective governance. Bruce Bowen
stated further that /such a de-
cision would be eroding our credi-
bility in the eyes of the general
University community. Thus, ift
spite of the fact that many mem-
bers of CSG believed personally
that the expenditure would be
wasteful, they felt constrained not
to use their "name" to atte.npt an
elections freeze.

By KATHLEEN KOLAR,
The Commission on Student Governance
(CSG) has selected the following areas for study:
I. Review and analysis of a variety of student
government models with a direction to study
other student government constitutions for ap-
plicability.
II. Election procedures and standards.
III. Appropriation and budgetary controls.
IV. Incentives to student involvement and par-
ticipation.
V. Student governance programatic paramet-
ers.
VI. Ethics and intra-university relationships, in-
cluding recognition and status.
In order to study the areas mentioned above
the commission has adopted a sequential model.
Under this model the work of the commission
has been divided into four phases:
Phase I: Gathering and summarizing information
and opinions
In this phase the Commission was involved in
essentially four tasks:
-The Student Opinion Survey
-A historical perspective on U of M student
government
-Collection of information about other student
governments
-A study of policy of school and college gov-
ernment peration.
A student opinion survey has been developed
to gather information about students' attitudes
about student government. A questionnaire has
been sent to a randomly seletred sample of ap-
proximately 1,200 students. When the results
of these questionnaires are available, the Com-
mission should have a clear idea of how Univer-
sity students view student government.
Information has been gathered and made avail-
able to Commission members providing a histori-
cal background about the development of student
government at the University.
Questionaires have been sent to 76 other col-
leges and universities as well as Big Ten univer-

sities. The purpose of these questionnaires is to
gather information about such matters as or-
ganization and financing of student government
as well as the relationship between student gov-
ernment and authority figures within the univer-
sity. Responses to this questionnaire have been
coming in and the Commission is in the process
of evaluating this information.
School and college governments throughout the
University are holding a meeting to discuss the
Commission on Student Governance. At this
meeting the Commission intends to gather in-
formation about the manner in which school and
college government operate.
Phase II: Discuss and decide on general form
and functions of University government
The purpose of this phase is to develop a the-
oretical model of student government. Among
the subjects which will be dealt with in this
phase. are the relationship between student gov-
ernment and the Regents, representation, and the
form of student government.
Phase III: The problem of student involvement
and participation
The Commission has not reached this phase
of the model yet, and thus no concrete objectives
have been determined. However, one of the ob-
jectives of the phase will be;to define the nature
of the problem and propose possible solutions.
Phase IV: The final report
In this phase the Commission will be develop-
ing recommendations to include in the final re-
port to the Regents and University community.
The sequential model requires the reorganiza-
tion of the Commission at the end of each phase
to begin the succeeding phase. Presently the
Commission has completed Phase I of its work
and has begun Phase II. The Commission's pre-
sent schedule calls for an interim report by the
Commission to the Regents in April with a final
report to be presented to the Regents and the
University later in the summer.

::& ~ . ZtlfA~
$:w .: ',' '. * #t.t.W. S r . . I',Y ,", >' .. r

le ttersletterslettersietterslettersieti

AP Photo

Unconcern for Undergrads

IN HIS STATE of the University speech
Tuesday night in Southfield, Univer-
sity President Robben Fleming cited the
money pinch as the worst problem facing
the University at the present time. He
went on to state that the money pinch
would not affect the undergraduate edu-
cation presently being offered at the
University, "and I don't think that's
bad." He expressed more concern, how-
ever, over possible effects on the gradu-
ate programs.
This attitude coincides with the gen-
eral policies long followed by this insti-
tute for higher education. Graduate-
oriented, more concerned with uphold-
ing its prestige in legal and medical cir-
cles, the University has consistently fail-
ed its undergraduate population. The
poor quality of counseling services, the
lack of encouragement for innovative
educational ideas, (i.e. the Residential
College/LSA conflict), points to a lack of
concern for the quality of undergraduate
education here.
Last month's Report of the Commis-
sion on Graduate Requirements, recog-
nizing the shameful state of undergrad
education at this highly prestigious uni-
versity, made some highly useful recom-
mendations on, specifically, kinds of
courses. quality of undergraduate life, at-
tention to teaching and other aspects of
education here. It is to be hoped that a
great deal of attention will be paid to
these recommendations. It is not very
likely, however.
THE MAJOR CONCERNS of this Uni-
versity have always been, and still
are, graduate education. That's where
the money goes. Unfortunately, the Uni-
versity administration seems to forget
that they have a great responsibility to
not only make sure all their undergrads
pass requirements, but that their under-
:rnds leave here having been stimulated

Although the number of applicants to
grad school here may not yet reflect it,
I see around me, within this academic
community, growing disenchantment
with a university education. Fleming is
aware of the decreasing funds entering
this University, yet it is incredible that
he fails to see that as a referendum on
the quality of undergraduate education
offered here.
-JOAN WEISS
Editorial Staff
DANIEL BIDDLE
Editor in Chief
JUDY RUSKIN and REBECCA WARNER
Managing Editors
TONY SCHWARTZ .................... Sunday Editor
MARTIN PORTER .................... Sunday Editor
SUE STEPHENSON .................... Feature Editor
MARNIE HEYN ....................Editorial Director
CINDY HILL...........Executive Editor
KENNETH FINK......................Arts Editor
STAFF WRITERS: Prakash Aswani, Gordon Atcheson,
Laura Berman, Dan Blugerman, Howard Brick,
Bonnie Carnes, Charles Coleman, Barb Cornell,
Jeff Day. Della DiPietro, Mike Duweck, Ted Evan-
off, Matt Gerson, William Heenan, Steve Hersch,
Jack Krost, Andrea Lilly, Mary Long, Jean Love,
Jeff Luxenberg, Josephine Marcotty, Beth Nissen,
Cheryl Pilate, Ann Rauma, Sara Rimer, Jim
Schuster, Bob Seidenstein, Stephen Selbst, Chip
Sinclair, Jeff Sorensen, David Stoll, Paul Ter-
williger.
DAILY WEATHER BUREAU: William Marino and Den-
nis Dismachek (forecasters)
Business Staff
riILL BLACKFORD
Business Manager
RAY CATALINO .. . . Operations Manager
SHERRY CASTLE .. ......... Advertising Manager
SANDY FIENBERG...... ........Finance Manager
DAVE BURLESON .... ..........Sales Manager
DEPT. MGRS.: Steve LeMire, Jane Dunning, Paula
Schwach
ASSOC. MGRS.: Joan Ades. Chantal Bancilhon,, Linda,
Ross, Mark Sanrmainte. S u a n n e Tiberio, Kevin
Trimmer
ASST. MGRS.: Marlene Katz, Bill Nealon
STAFF: Sue DeSmet, Laurie Gross, Debbie Novess,
Carol Petok, Mimi Bar-on
SALESPEOPLE: We ndi Pohs. Tom Kettinger, Eric
Phillips, P e t e r Anders, Ro b e r t Fischer, Paula
Schwach, Jack lezzara. John Anderson
nA .V W 7V ll A'TVrn Rn TTflT.A T i nn41;, . AS,. ..;,. anti

solidarity
To The Daily:
I'D LIKE to make two points:
one concerns the importance of the
Third World Conference for a I I
students, and the other is how The
Daily could have done more to
convey this importance.
The lack of build-up before the
conference and the nature of the
coverage The Daily did give to the
conference very clearly shows the
failure of The Daily staff to real-
ize the significance of the con-
ference for students on this cam-
pus.
Any reasons given for this atti-
tude, such as the daily pressures
cf getting a newspaper out, unex-
:erienced reporters, etc., do dot
justify the poor and inconsistent
coverage of news important to mi-
nority students and to the fighting
>f racism, and only obscure the
real problems of good communica-
ion between Daily reporters a n d
minority students.
MUCH OF THE coverage the
conference did get took the form
of feature articles on the individ-
ual speakers at the conference as
personalities, rather than a de-
scription of some of the issues that
concern minority students, which
gave rise to the planning and or-
ganizing of this conference in the
first place.
For all the good intentions of
some of the Daily staff involved
in the coveroge of this conference,
I really think a disservice was
done in focusing solely on the main
speakers.
The same issues and concerns,
such as minority enrollment a n d
programs, that the majority of stu-
dents in the 60's and again in 1971
demonstrated and went on strike
for, now more thaa ever need ac-
tive support.
It's unfortunate that the many
progressive white students on this
campus failed to be mobilized, an~d
I think The Daily could have done
more to present the importance
of this conference.
EVEN CONSIDERING the gen-
eral lack of student concern with
activism and social problems. th,
media does have the power to try
to influence the people. it need not
perpetuate the image of anything
"Third World" as being mystifying
and exclusive.
A Third World Conference liki.
this was good because we fnird

talked about how oppressed Third
World people are, but also talked
about the corruption and racism in
our political and economy. system.
ONE OF THE best things that
could come out of this conference
is a movement to really examine
the causes of oppression and to
develop skills to change the sys.
tem.
I think we have to start being a
lot more precise about what we're
headed for and not just glorify the
student activism of the 60's. Peo-
ple will find that some raally ex-
citing ideas are coming out of con-
ferences like this one.
We Third World people are not
ready to settle for generating
awareness of racism and oppres-
sion. The fact that the workshops
and mini-course (soon to begin)
center around issues on this cam-
pus is a clear indication of how
important we feel it is no: to lose
sight of our end goal of changing
the nature of society. It is precise-

ly for this reason that the confer-
ence and what happens now is ii-
portant for all students.
I think the mini-course and t h e
Third World People's Coalition and
Progressive People's Coalition,
now being planned, will provid* a
forum through which we can or-
ganize. I hope The Daily will sup-
port these forthcoming efforts.
-Madeline Chang '76
February 27
cowardice
To The Daily:
DURING THE RECENT spring
vacation, two obviously related
events occurred. One, the Water-
gate grand jury indicted several
of President Nixon's aides, and
two, the University of Michigan
slyly erected chain link fences to
create two separate paddocks near
the graduate and undergraduate
libraries. Without any inference
that the U of M administration ar-
ranged to have the fences - which

block well-used pedestrian pas-
sages-put up while students were
away, it does seem that they're
up to something.
Usually unreliable sources indi-
cate that a deal has been made be-
tween Presidents Nixon and Flem-
ing, with the advice and consent
of U of M alumnus Gerald Ford.
Pending eventual executive clem-
ency for the Watergate defendants,
they are to be incarcerated in the
newlyfenced-in areas on the cam-
pus. For Nixon, this will serve to
move the jailed ex-aides from the
center of attention in Washington
D.C. (where, as we all know,
things always seem worse than
they really are). For Michigan, the
history books will forever refer to
the "Nixon-Fleming deal" and the
Ann Arbor 7.
In addition, special arrange-
ments have been made to strike a
commemorative medal marking
the incarceration. Fleming and
Nixon will be on one side and the
Ann Arbor 7 on the other. Report-

I,

VF HE Gel'* HURIT.

I-rt YOUR FAULI' I'

edly, Ford wanted to appear with
Fleming and Nixon on the medal,
but Nixon vetoed the idea since
Ford has already graced one U of
M medal this year. About Ford's
desire for a second appearance,
Nixon said emphatically, "It is
wrong, that's for sure."
David M. Wessel
March 17
conspiracy
To The Daily:
ALTHOUGH I have supported
the Democratic Party for many
years, I cannot support my party
in this year's city elections. -
The Ann Arbor party has shown
unforgivable cowardice in declin-
ing to even take a stand on the
issue of rent control - an issue
which is probably the most im-
portant to appear before the voters
in a long time.
It really disturbs me to see Dem-
ocrats ducking controversial issues
just to gain a temporary electoral
advantage.
How can we criticize the Nixon-
ian Republican Party when we our-
selves are unwilling to tell the
truth to the people?
To make matters worse, we
have even gone on record as favor-
ing rent control in our platform.
* Now that rent control is a possibili-
ty, our candidates run for cover.
I can only conclude that some of
our "leaders" put positions in the:
platform only to compete with the
HRP and not because they believe
In them.
I think that rent control is vital
to keep already high rents from
going even higher in this city; and
I hope that rank and file Demo-
crats will give it their support. But
I am disappointed that our local
party organization has skirted this
important issue.
Lynn Slaughter
March 18
godfather
To The Daily:
PLEASE EXTEND my deepest
sympathies to the 7 p.m. audience
at the Saturday UAC Mediatric's
performance of The Godfather. Th
audience participation (aside from
the reactions elicited from the Hol-
lywood-like violence) in the un-
folding tragedy of Michael bor-
dered on the incredulous. T h e
muffled exclamations ('Michael is
a cool dude!') of complete unsur-

I,