i


sI icet- n Bath
Eighty-Six Years of Editorial Freedom
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Tuesday, November 18, 1975

News Phone: 764-0552

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan


SGC endorsements

" 0

THE ONGOING SGC election will
determine the fate of seven at-
large council seats and four major
ballot proposals.
The Daily chooses to endorse only
on the ballot proposals.
Briefly, we:
. oppose Proposal A, voluntary
funding,
* support Proposal B, the Michi-
gan Student Assembly amendments
package
f oppose Proposal C, the Constitu-
tional Convention Plan, and
" oppose Proposal D, the release
to SGC of $12,000 in unused Student
Legal Advocate Program monies.
Reasons for these choices are pre-
sented below.
Proposal -A:No
PROPOSAL A, VOLUNTARY fund-
ing, would if passed abolish
SGC's current mandatory assessment
policy of 75c per student per term
-a total of roughly $50,000 dollars
per year.
Incentives for making a charity
case out of SGC were more than am-
ply supplied by the council's recent
record of financial mismanagement
and chicanery. Why, the proposal's
supporters argue, should SGC con-
tinue to tax students when most stu-
dents heartily disapprove of what's
being done with their money? In it-
self, the argument is compelling
enough. But it can't be realistically
separated from the larger issue of
whether in fact some form of stu-
dent government should exist on this
campus.
SGC now maintains certain deci-
sion - making and appointment func-
tions that ensure a modicum of stu-
dent input in university affairs.
What would happen to these pow-
ers if SGC died a pauper's death?
They would revert to the Regents,
students would have to put them-
selves at the mercy of the regents in
order to regain them.
VOLUNTARY FUNDING IS an ex-
treme solution to a problem that
could be dealt with through less dras-
tic measures. Reverting to a "spare
change" funding policy is certainly
strong enough medicine to cure
what's ailing SGC but it might ust
knock off the patient in the process.
At the same time, it is ridiculous to
invite abuse by giving SGC more
money than it knows what to do
with.
The Daily qualifies its opposition to
Proposal A on voluntary funding by
admonishing council for its "cash 'n'
carry" practices in the past. We call
on council to immediately effect a
drastic reduction in its student as-
sessment.
Approve MSA
H SECOND BALLOT proposal, the
MSA plan, takes the form of a
series of constitutional amendments
aimed at thoroughly overhauling the
structure of student government. If
B passes, the present council will be
replaced by a Michigan Student As-
sembly comprised of up to 35 stu-
dent representatives.
18 would be elected at large. One
additional member would be appoint-
ed by each of the 14 school and col-
lege governments. The MSA plan
provides for up to 17 appointed

members in the event that the three
remaining university colleges organ-
ize governmental bodies.
Under MSA, much of the haggling,
disorganization, and infighting that
now handcuffs council would be
avoided by the presence of a seven-
person steering, committee. The panel
would screen and recommend on all
major Issues that come before coun-
cil, and would reserve the right to
appoint student members to the uni-
versity's auxiliary corporations, such
as the 'U' Cellar and athletic boards.
THE MSA PLAN IS the product of
a lot of thought input from all
areas of the university. Members of
the School and College Government
task force put it together last sum-

mer. Their goal was to put the re-
commendations of the CSSG (Com-
mission to Study Student Govern-
ance) report into practice through a
design that could comfortably be ac-
commodated by the present constitu-
tion through amendments.
The revised student government
would place a premium on efficiency
and coordination of the combined re-
sources of student groups. It seeks to
avoid the kind of oversights and re-
search duplication born of SGC's
current free-floating status vis-a-vis
the objectives of the individual
school assemblies.
The objections posed by MSA's
opponents play up the unwieldy size
of the proposed 35-member student
assembly and the unprecedented de-
gree of power to be vested in so
small a body as the Steering Com-
mittee.
But the bulkiness of the assembly
does not negate the broader repre-
sentation of student interest for
which it provides. Also, the steering
committee as conceived would be
powerful, but not autocratic. If at
any time the student assembly feels
an officer or member of the steering
committee is not meeting their ex-
pectations, the assembly can recall
that person by majority vote.
Oppose Con-Con
Some people feel the need for
change is so great that a constitu-
tional convention is in order. Thus
the appearance of proposal C on to-
day's ballot. If passed, C would
prompt the formation of a commit-
tee of up to 75 students charged with
redefining the role of student gov-
ernment and drawing up a new con-
stitution.
PROPOSAL C IS A conciencious ef-
fort to revise SGC with student in-
terests in mind. Convention dele-
gates would represent all areas of the
University. Theoretically, so would
the constitution that came out of it.
But precedent places casts real doubt
on the worth of such an ambitious
project. Another stab at a constitu-
tional convention was made amid
much hoopla and egalitarian fervor
during the mid-sixties. Not long aft-
er its inception, that con-con con-
tracted a fatal case of internal bick-
ering. Over a year later it died a
miserable death, with no new consti-
tution to show for its efforts.
A NEW CONVENTION WOULD like-
ly suffer from the same symp-
toms of size and indirection. It would
also sap the energies of concerned
students, energies that could be put
to better use in getting a neophyte
MSA off the ground.
We oppose the passage of the Con-
Con, Proposal C, because it could
stifle MSA's potential for success and
may not be able to arrive at a work-
able alternative.
'No' to big grab
Proposal D would release to SGC
$12,000 unspent by the Student Legal
Advocate Program. The Daily feels
this measure ignores the need for
austerity. We recommend a "No"
vote on Proposal D and urge council
to rebate the unspent money, through
equal shares, to university students.

Support boycott
UNIVERSITY HOUSING
RESIDENTS are being asked to
vote on a number of University Hous-
ing Council matters along with the
SGC ballot proposals. The Daily
chooses to make only one endorse-
ment on the UHC slate, that involv-
ing the boycott of non-United Farm
Workers lettuce by the dormitory
food services.
We urge dorm residents to vote
"yes" on maintaining the boycott of
non-union lettuce.
The farmworkers are denied the
basic rights of personal dignity and
health the rest of us enjoy. If revers-
inr tlnt nvei~nt rna s~e nni-nr-- n

MSA
To The Daily:
THE NOVEMBER 14 Daily
printed an article by the
"School and College Govern-
ment Task Force," extolling the
virtues of the Michigan Stu-
dent Assembly plan appearing
as a ballot proposal in the up-
coming All-Campus Election. As
this article was biased in favor
of the plan (after all, the Task
Force wrote it), perhaps a dis-
senting argument is in order.
Although the concept of a
centralized and balanced stu-
dent government is quite desir-
able, the MSA plan is shoddily
conceived and encourages both
bureaucratic tyranny and chaos.
A major contributor to the
dictatorial aspects of the plan
is the "Steering Committee"
concept of this government. A-
though some type of executive
direction is obviously neces-
sary, the proposal as it will ap-
pearbefore the students is
loaded with flaws. To wit:
" The Steering Committee
will be composed of seven of-
fivers elected by the body by
a majority. These officers can
also be removed by the body
by a majority. From past ex-
perience, this situation could
lead to constant fluctuation in
the officers with the shift of
only a couple of votes, not to
mention numerous attempts to
stage an executive coup.
" Included among these of-
ficers elected by the body by
For a comparative situation,
this is an impartial observer
given the power to participate
in executive decisions.
" The Committee will have
the power to make various de-
cisions without consulting the
body, such as recognition of
student organizations and ap-
pointment to student-oriented
committees. Although the pro-
ponents of the plan have argued
that the body still has the pow-
er to veto, two possibilities
come into consideration: either
the body will become a rubber
stamp, or the Steering Com-
mittee will become worthless.
Either concept smacks of pro-
grammed obsolescence.
" The Steering Committee
will be duplicating tasks al-
ready accomplished by standing
committees: i.e., reviewing
proposed allocations. In the
first place, this is asking rep-
resentatives such as Coordinat-
ing Officer and Communica-
tions Officer to go outside of
their fields of specialization to
arrive at the decision. In the
second place, since each sub-
division will assumedly do suf-
ficient research on its topic to
be able to make recommenda-
tions of their own, it makes no
point to review their work
again before bringing it to the
body.
THERE ARE OTHER flaws.
A thirty-five member body, as
MSA proposes, is colossally dif-
ficult to work with week after
week. Members may reach of-
fice with a half-dozen votes or
less, if they represent one of
the smaller schools or colleges.
(Last year, when there was a
similar constituential set-up,
two of the school and college
reps were elected with two
votes each.) If there is no
school or college government
in an instance, the students
have to take the initiative to
create a way of selecting a rep-
resentative. Giving LSA (16,-
000 students) the same number
of representatives as, say, Pub-
lic Health or Music is ridicu-
lous.
The Daily article also criti-
cized the concept of a Consti-

Letters
tutional Convention, charging
that it would take a "long
time" for any substantial chan-
ges to go into effect. However,
the problems with MSA seem to
warrant its defeat; its incon-
sistencies would undoubtedly
lead to the confusion and irre-
levance of last year's coun-
cil. The Con-Con would be a
representative body given the
task of creating a truly sub-
stantial student government.
Haste should not be a factor
where the health of student
government is concerned. Vote
no on MSA and yes on Con-Con;
don't succumb to the frenetics
of the Task Force, and take
the time to create a new, work-
able means of student repre-
sentation on this campus.
G. J. DiGiuseppe
Acting Presiding
Officer
UCA/Action
Nov. 17
pro
To The Daily:
CHOICE. DO we have a
choice, or do we not have a
choice? The issue of voluntary
funding is as simple as that.
Currently we have no choice.
Student Government Council
(SGC), the central student gov-
ernment at Michigan, assesses
us $1.50 each year, listed on our
financial statements, in addi-
tion to tuition. The university
administration collects the mon-
ey, and turns it over to SGC.
That means the SGC operating
budget amounts to a whopping
$52,000 a year. There is no re-
fund.
This mandatory funding sys-
tem has been in effect for over
four years. Thus, students have
been forced to contribute over
$200,000 to SGC in that time. The
result is clear. Two former
SGC president in that period,
Bill Jacobs and Lee Gill, had
civil suits filed against them
for the alleged disappearance of
over $40,000 of those funds. One
election, in March 1973, was
thrown out because of ballot
stuffing necessitating a second
election, which cost the stu-
dents an additional $5,000. Two
years ago SGC members were
threatened with physical as-
sault in the council chambers
after a debate on quotas and af-
firmative action. Last year two
SGC members got into a fist-
fight in the middle of a council
session. Furthermore, SGC has
been constantly plagued by fi-
nancial troubles, and has been
periodically in debt, as they are
at present.
EACH YEARTHEnew-
ly elected council promises re-
sponsive honest government,
and this year's SGC is no ex-
ception. Yet each year we see
the same pattern emerging.
SGC members ignore the stu-
dents, and in return students
try to ignore SGC. The root of
all this of course the money.
Student Government Council is
assured of $52,000 before the
year even begins, no matter
how many students vote or
whom they vote for.
SGC need to care about the
students, as they collect their
money regardless. Therefore,
since accountability is unneces-
sary, naturally there is very
little. A recent example of this
is the $1210.60 allocated on
January 30 for bus transporta-
tion to protest racism in Bos-
ton schools. Many people who

went were not even Michigan
students, and others just want-
ed cheap rides to Boston.
If SGC had to come to the
students for money, then SGC

would be forced to listen to the
students, and spend the money
they received as we the stu-
dents desire it to be spent. If
no, the sources of money would
dry up very quickly. Further-
more, the current SGC is domi-
nated by special interests, just
as special interests dominate
Washington D. C., and as a re-
sult there is a similar type of
corruption. Of course, the main
people opposed to voluntary
funding are the special interest
groups, and SGC members
themselves. Apparently, many
special interest groups are of
the opinion that if the money
is not taken from the students
by force, then students would
not voluntarily desire to contri-
bute to such organizations. Well,
if this is true then we face a
great injustice on campus: stu-
dents are forced to contribute
to organizations they would not

very little to operate. Thus one
sees less than $10,000 (19.2 per
cent of the budget), going for
operating expenses. On the oth-
er hand, $5,600 has been allo-
cated for running elections.
Should elections cost $5,600?
Also, over $15,500 was used for
outside allocations last school
year, and SGC has already ap-
propriated over $6,000 this year!
Anyone interested in seeing the
growing list of special interests
benefitting from these alloca-
tions should visit the SGC office
on the third floor of the Union,
and ask for a listing of outside
allocations during 1974-75. The
list is quite revealing.
VOLUNTARY F U N D I N G
would not only help eliminate
the corrupt practices that have
outraged students for years, but
also would give the students
and their student government

to

the legal advocate pointed out
to Council in the fall of '72.
When Council was established,
there were two premises in
operation. First, students have
a right to form a government
to represent them and to provide
such regulation as is the proper
jurisdiction of the student body.
Second, among other things,
government has the power to
levy dues in order to maintain
its operations.
If students vote to remove
the clause in the. constitution
that sets the SGC fee at 7S
cents and the Legal Advocate
portion of that fee at 30 cents
(per term per student), they will
be voting against their own
rights and creating a constitu-
tional conflict.
For there will still be two
clauses in the all campus Con-
stitution that guarantee a man-
datory dues system.

The Daily

THE SA A 't Rt0**LV

.*

I\

I

4

NKO ~
DALE

0414A A._

'04 IR' OI.tAND'

HAVNAw*"W 4.IP
NWW9- w

contribute to voluntarily.7
only solution to this is vo
tary funding. And if this is
true, then with voluntary fu
ing these organizations wo
receive contributions froms
dents, except now these org
izations will have to be resp
sive to the students that f
them, instead of responsive
SGC.
THERE ARE SOME pe
who ask, "What if nob
gives?" The answer is obvio
If no one gives, then the m
responsive student governo
would be none at all.
Looking at the budget,t
realizes that SGC needs very
tie money to operate with a
way. Most work done by S
is appointing students toi
versity committees, opera
the student health insura
program, registering vot
and regulating student organ
tions. All these programs e
er pay for themselves, or c

The
lun-
not
und-
)uld
stu-
ian-
,on-
und
to
ople
ody
ous.
host
rent
one
T lit-
ny-
GC
lini-

new power. The university has
more than once threatened to
stop collecting SGC dues if SGC
stepped out of line with the
administration, and has recent-
ly done so again due to the pos-
sibility of a student legal suit
against the administration. The
university, therefore, has ulti-
mate control over student gov-
ernment, and surely this must
contribute to SGC's numerous
problems. Voluntary funding
would give students and student
government an independent
source of finances, and as a re-
sult student government would
be independent from the admin-
istration, and would wield more
power in dealing with the uni-
versity.

ti
M(
e
liz
co

IS# - .A - .-A-- .

I..

. ... . . AA.A A.^ 1r4Aa

A.a a/..4


.THEY DRAFTED THE THAT'S THE WAYITWAS...
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENQE IcS HAS BEEN A BICENTENNIAL
WHICH DECLARED "ALL MEN ARE MINUTE.
CREATED EQUAL" ..- -
,
'N' 'a

For two years SGC members
ing have succeeded in preventing
Lce voluntary funding from appear-
r' ing on the ballot. However, this
za- ,year student petitions, circulat-
th- ed by the Committee for an
ost Honest Student Government,
have compelled SGC to place
the constitutional amendment
on the current ballot to replace
the present mandatory funding
system. A yes vote on voluntary
funding means that each stu-
dent will have the choice whe-
ther to donate or withhold her
or his money. A no vote means
that SGC will continue to take
our money without our consent.
THIS, THEN, is the main is-.
sue. Maybe you think SGC is
worth the amount of money you
pay. But maybe you don't. How-
ever, you should have the
choice. Vote to give the stu-
dents a choice, and to let SGC
finally know that student gov-
ernment exists for the benefit
of the students, and not the
other way around.
Bob Garber
President, Committee
for an Honest Student
Government. Sponsor,
Voluntary funding peti-
tion drive
Nov. 17
con
To The Daily:
WHILE I WAS investigating
the voluntary, funding issue on
behalf of Council, it came to
-_ - - - n .:..

FIRST, ARTICLE 15 of the
Bill of Rights states that stu-
dents have the right "to form
and maintain a democratic stu-
dent government with the pow-
er..." to perform government
functions including the power
"to levy and collect assessments
on the students." The all-cafn-
pus Constitution grants Student
Government Council the authori-
ty to carry out certain func-
tions, such as making and sanc-
tioning rules governing students,
appointing members to the Cen-
tral, Student Judiciary and. to
university committees, and ap-
plying the Bill of Rights to all
students. These powers are vest-
ed in the student body, through
its elected government, rather
than being given to others such
as the university administration.
Also, even if section IIb.1 is
removed, section Ilb which spe-
cifically empowers SGC to "levy
dues and provide for their col-
lection equally, among all stu-
dents" will remain.
Instead of creating a volun-
tary funding program, the net
result of a yes vote on this
issue would be to eliminate the
75 cents limit on dues because
of a conflict between the con-
cept of voluntary- funding and
these constitutional clauses.
This question, if passed, would
also abolish the Student Legal
Advocate Program since it is,
this clause that guarantees the
30 cents per student/per term
to that program.
Essentially, it is the respon-
sibility of Student Government
Council to protect the rights of
students, among them their right
to "form and maintain a demo-
cratic student government."
WITH THAT IN MIND, we
have asked the Central Student
Judiciary to rule that the pas-
sage of this question would pose
a conflict with the Constitution
so that it is clear to students
what they are voting on. Their
answer was that they could not
rule on a conflict that has not
yet occurred.
After working very hard to
make this year's council an ac-
tive, responsive, credible organi-
zation, we would hate to have
to pit ourselves against the rest
of the student body in order to
uphold the bill of rights.
Please vote on November 17,
18, 19. Vote no on voluntary

WHAT DID THEY DO AFTER THEY
FINISHED THAT DECLARATION,
DADDY!
4>*>k

THEY SPLIT FOR THE SLAVE
MARKET TO PICK UP A LITTLE
EXTRA HELP FOR THE
PLANTATION.-

J5

I ! ' . M AIM77,;aw