4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, December 7, 1994 oIz irbgr4jun &ilg 'I do not micro-manage.' 420 Maynard Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Jessie Halladay Editor in Chief Samuel Goodstein Flint Wainess Editorial Page Editors Cold War - LSA Dean Edie Goldenberg Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of a majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters, and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. The city next door HEY$ (OME Ot! IT Was 7f4E, SIC04 OF THE IE ALL 916H7T~4 ,,j.J " - / °}f-a /= r. thecasual observer, thepersonnel changes within the Office of University Relations may seem a matter of academic concern -or no concern at all. After all, the new suits in the Fleming Building are mere facsimiles of the old University bureaucrats who looked down at their city and county counterparts with con- tempt. Or are they? After several months without a liaison to local government, theUniversity ishiringJames Kosteva as director of community relations, effective Dec. 19. Kosteva, a former Demo- cratic state representative from Canton, can and should bring a much-needed change in relations between the University and the com- munities it impacts. Last spring, the University lost Peter Pellerito, its liaison to local government, to a private-sector pharmaceutical firm in Califor- nia. Instead of quickly moving to replace Pellerito, the University attempted to spread his duties to other officials in University Rela- tions - a tactic that, although cheaper, ulti- mately harmed the University's standing with the outside world. Associate Vice President for University Relations Lisa Baker, who will be Kosteva's boss, handled many dealings with local government. But Ann Arbor city officials were left with no single representative to contract when problems arose. The summer provided a dramatic example of city-University relations gone awry when the University purchased a major office build- ing, removing it from the city's tax rolls. The city administrator said he was not informed of the impending purchase until the night before the University Board of Regents approved it. And city officials renewed their push for a local impact statement, which would require the University to notify them of moves that would affect the community and of the conse- quences of those moves. But as Baker pointed out, issuing a local impact statement would be a burden on the University. This is especially true considering the lack of personnel for local relations - but that will change with Kosteva's hiring. When Kosteva takes office, he and city officials should quickly open lines of commu- nication. The reshuffling in the Office of University Relations and the dissolution of the Office of Government Relations cut off several vital communication links. For ex- ample, city and University officials no longer hold monthly, closed-door meetings to dis- cuss areas of mutual concern. Kosteva also must recognize the role that students, as constituents of both the Univer- sity and the city, play in bridging differences between the two. Although students lacked an advocate in local government, Michigan Stu- dent Assembly city liaison Andrew Wright has worked tirelessly to bring matters of stu- dent concern to the City Council table. Wright has also worked with University officials, but many of his proposals have met a frosty re- sponse. The University has barred Wright from the monthly meetings between the city and the University, saying he does not represent ei- ther party. The argument is true but self- defeating. For too long, the University has shirked student input into local affairs. Kosteva should change that. Kosteva brings a wealth of experience in coalition-building to his new job. Pellerito was cordial and impeccably honest, but lacked the warmth and sense of community neces- sary to connect to local leaders. Kosteva should repudiate the University's high-handed ap- proach in dealing with city government and treat his Ann Arbor counterparts as equals. Only then can the city and University con- structively work to solve problems - before and after they arise. The secret task force hen Washington D.C. Federal District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth im- posed a fine on Clinton administration offi- cials for their participation in the closed-door health care task force of 1993, he violated a cardinal rule of the playground: never kick a man when he's down. Nevertheless, while it is tempting to use the fine as a springboard to simply pile on the administration, a more con- structive tack can be found in taking this op- portunity to revisit what went wrong in the health care debacle of 1994 - and what dis- turbing fundamentals the closed task force revealed about the Clinton administration. Charged with piecing together one of the most important bills to be submitted to Con- gress in American domestic policy history, the taskforce was flawedfromits inception. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ira Magaziner, with a reputable knack for systems analysis but not for policy making, chaired the 500 member task force, and it quickly became clear that they planned to shut its doors to the public. Under the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, this would be illegal - unless the task force was constituted solely of government employees, which the administration knew was not possible as they embarked to reinvent one-seventh of the American economy. Andsoitwent. When the taskforce emerged with its wholly non-incremental approach to reforming health care, it became clear that closing the task force was not only illegal, it made for atrocious policy. , First, it violated every central tenet of open government. The 1970s was the decade of opening up government, as the Nixon admin- istration proved to the country that centralized power was a recipe for disaster. On the Federal swung into effect, and the states passed varia- tions of open meetings act legislation. But in an ironic twist, the 1980s became not the decade of open government, but the decade of trying desperately to thwart sunshine laws. The Clintons came to Washington promising a new era -- "putting people first." But em- bracing the centerpiece of the Clinton domes- tic policy, the administration alienated public and congressional opponents alike. An administration that had conducted its meetings under the scrutiny of the public lens would have realized: 1) the business commu- nity, initially providing a large impetus for reform, would simply not support sweeping mandatory alliances and 2) Republicans would never allow a left-in approach to solving the health care crisis that read like the Iliad and included arcane cost containment "solutions" such as global budgeting. In other words, an administration behind closed doors was an administration destined to be alienated from public and congressional opinion. Thus, the Clinton administration emerged from the task force thinking they had a solution to any health care problem policy gurus could conjure up - alas they were startled to find that the GOP wouldn't work with them after they had shut the GOP out of the entire formulation process. This was ad- ministrative naivete at its zenith. In hindsight, it is always easy to criticize. But this is one the administration should have seen coming a long time ago. Open govern- ment is good government: it both cleanses the political process and usually makes better policy. Perhaps that is the lesson the Clinton ad- ministration should be taking away from the Don't boycott the Daily, criticize it To the Daily: This is in response to who- ever put up those flyers trying to incite everyone to "boycott the Daily." A boycott is gener- ally an economic tool used in order to pressure a producer or seller of a certain product to respond to consumer demands, implemented by influencing people to not purchase that pro- ducer or seller's goods, for whatever reason. The Daily is free. By "boy- cotting" the Daily you achieve, well, pretty much nothing, con- sidering that the Daily does not depend on revenue (at least not from University students) in order to survive. How is this supposed to tell the writers, editors, etc., at the paper any- thing? Now I am not saying that your purposes in doing this are off-based; in fact, I agree with basically everything in the flyer pertaining to the quality of the paper. The most effective way with which to get a message to the people who run the paper is to send letters - lots of them. Don't be discouraged! The Daily wants our letters! They tell us this in every issue. So send them some. Here's an ex- ample: Dear Daily, I am appalled that a school of the size and reputation of the University has such a horrible student paper. Your editors are basically in- competent, and junior high stu- dents could easily compete with the writers. Your editorials of- ten lack support, poignancy and conviction. Many of the staff writers need lessons in basic punctuation, sentence structure and a widening oftheirvocabu- laries. Please stop writing ter- rible articles. Thank you. [your name here So don't hesitate. It's easy. If you think the Daily is so bad that sometimes it angers you, let them know. Please - write about it be- fore they do. Jesse Ackles LSA first-year student Engin- LSA is no joke To the Daily: Re: Erik Bergs's letter to the editor, 12/5/94. Erik, Erik, Erik. How igno- rant thou hastbecometh in your haughty arrogance. LSA stu- dents are, yes, truly disadvan- taged relative to their allegedly superior engineering counter- parts in regards to Hewlett- Packard's failure to market any such tool capable of providing the panacaeic virtues which their calculators provide engi- Morality and values will not stop AIDS To the Daily: I am writing this letter in response to the cynical and untrue remarks made by Mark Fletcher on Dec. 5.1 think that Mark and the College Republi- cans are taking the entire mean- ing out of last week's AIDS Awareness Week and making it look like something "im- moral" and wrong. I have one thing to say: putting aside the obnoxious and uncalled for remarks, it must be realized that morality and family values will not stop the spreading of the AIDS prob- lem. Education and awareness are two of the ways which will effectively reduce the spread of this disease. I hope that all of you who do not agree with me will see how important educa- tion is, for this disease is not one of homosexuals or IV drug users, but one which affects us all, moral and immoral to use the College Republicans words. Please take time to think about this issue and the reality of it and then maybe you will realize how this is something that everyone is affected by - and can only be solved with the proper education and aware- ness of the FACTS. Jae-Jae Spoon LSA sophomore Politicians preaching values are not inclusive To the Daily: After reading Jason Lichtstein's Dec. 1 column, I agreed with his assessment of the failings of the Democratic campaign. However, I don't think the answer is to turn American politics into a battle- ground over "values." I have always found it ironic that the Republican party, which sup- posedly stands for the ideals upon which our government was founded, espouses "val- ues" (a term which is, of neces- sity, kept vague), which is dan- gerously close to a violation of separation of state and belief. Beyond this fundamental prob- lem, it is also true that in a nation as diverse as ours, any attemptto systematize "values" would be arbitrary. Besides the self-righteous tone of the claim to such authority, it is not the government's job to say any- thing about "values," but rather to protect the right of all to choose their beliefs freely. If there are some who don't like being part of a society in which away from the issues that gov- ernment is supposed to be han- dling. On the same page, Mark Fletcher claims that the Repub- licans want to "encourage re- sponsibility," when obviously, in a democracy, the choices that we make, and the beliefs which govern them, are a matter of personal responsibility, not the government's. It is not a politi- cal issue. The only people who want the government to "help explain the problems they face in daily life," as Lichtstein quoted, are those who aren't willing to face these problems themselves. That's their prob- lem, not that of the entire na- tion. Not that I see any genuine cause for concern, since I don't believe that either the Republi- cans or the Democrats stand for any "values" at all, other than increasing their own power. If I'm wrong, then I suppose those of us who still believe in free- dom of belief will have to find yet another continent to go to, as many of our ancestors were once forced to do. John Morgan LSA senior Kudos to the Daily Editorial Staff To the Daily: Kudos to the Daily editorial staff forgetting the facts straight about Newt Gingrich and Re- publicans on Tuesday. Granted, "The 'new' House" did use lib- eral cliches such as "voodoo economics" and "draconian welfare proposals" to describe the Gingrich platform, but I will disregard that flaw; liberals do need time to grow. The rest of the editorial was excellent. Congratulations and keep up the good work. prisoners in Puerto Rico We take our political freedom seriously in the United States. De- spite some unfortunate episodes, we rightfully take pride in our sub- stantial liberties, enshrined in the Constitution and upheld by law and tradition for the past two centuries. We make much of our ability to take the high ground against coun- tries like the Soviet Union, where one's political opinions could land one in jail or worse. It hardly occurs to us to question the unstated as- sumption that imprisoning some- one for their politics is not only unconstitutional, it goes against the very fiber of what we think this country is about. It is thus not sur- prising to feel shock and indigna- tion when faced with the incontro- vertible fact that there are indeed politicalprisoners in the United States. While our political prisoners come in all shades and perspec- tives, from Native American to African American to European American, one group stands out as contributing more than their fair share ofpolitical prisoners currently held in U.S. jails. Right now, there are 17 Puerto Ricans incarcerated for their political beliefs. None of these people have ever been con- victed, never even been accused of a violent crime. Yet most of them have been in jail for 14 years, more than the time served by the average murderer. Their crime, on paper, is seditious conspiracy. Their crime, in fact, is advocacy of indepen- dence for their country. Puerto Rico has the dubious honor of being the last significant colony in the world. As part of the Spanish American war it was in- vaded by U.S. forces in 1898, and has remained under U.S. military rule ever since. But much like our Iown founders, Puerto Ricans have never accepted their colonial status without a fight, and the indepen- dence movement, born with the U.S. invasion, has been a thorn in the side of seventeen U.S. presi- dents. The United Nations has re- peatedly called on the U.S. to decolonize, and therest of the world reacts with some amusement when we call on othercountries to respect the sovereignty of neighboring na- tions, a call that is understandably viewed as cynical and hypocritical. The Puerto Rican independence movement consists of thousands of Puerto Ricans who wish to see their country break free of the anachro- nistic yolk of colonialism by be- coming an independent nation. The U. S. government has reacted to this movement with dramatic po- liticalrepression, including thejail- ing of its leaders. It had been argued that an inde- pendence movement in Puerto Rico is an unacceptable threat to U.S. Cold War plans, and thus must be fought with whatever means neces- sary. Perhaps the Cold War plan- ners were right, not necessarily morally or ethically, but politically correct in their concern that an in- dependent Puerto Rico may have threatened U. S. hegemony in the hemisphere - another Cuba could not have been tolerated. And just maybe that concern could have been translated into the need to maintain political prisoners - again moral or ethical question aside. But to- day? A threat from an independent Puerto Rico? What might be the reasoning behind maintaining po- litical prisoners today? Indeed, the refusal of the U.S. government to release Puerto Rican political prisoners appears to be nothing more than a holdover from the Cold War mentality, does noth- ing forthe U.S.interms of practical S :1 Michael R. Wheaton Letter king 01 01 I