Constitution controversy
Dear editor:
Six weeks ago a group of ASUN senators were
selected for a committee to review the present ASUN
constitution with the sole intent of modifying those
portions which were either ineffective or outdated.
As they proceeded with their task they began to
realize that to be truly realistic, they would have to
change more than just a few sections. Consequently
they called for a constitutional convention to draft a
new and hopefully better document from which
ASUN could work more effectively. "
The first major change that was made was to cut
the number of elected offices of the student
association from 38 to IS people. Numerous
questions arose as we proceeded with this
modification. Perhaps the most important was what
this would do to the representativeness of the
association. There are several points which we think
answer this question.
1) Cities with populations in excess of 400,000
people are governed by city councils as small as 10
people. With this in mind it would seem that IS
students could represent a campus of 20,000 students
effectively.
2) Having fewer people representing a college would
tend to make them more identifiable in the eyes of
their constituents, thus making them much more
responsible for their actions.
3) It would be easier for specific representatives to
relate back to the official bodies of each college. For
instance, one or two board members from agriculture
or. engineering could easily convey information
between the board and the respective executive
groups of the colleges. Again in this situation it would
be hard for a member to deny his responsibility to his
constituents and pass it off on another member.
4) The question of whether or not this group would
become elitist tends to go back to two other points.
First we tend to have more faith in our student body
than to think that they could be easily fooled time
and time again into voting for an elitist association.
Secondly, the members of the association cannot be
chairmen of committees, consequently more people
would be brought into the operational stage of
student government than before.
We did not feel that representation should stop at
the election process. Consequently we improved the
previous petition system so that students would have
direct imput into the association. As in the examples
below.
1) By the use of a petition signed by 100 students
a resolution may be introduced to the board. This
places the board in the position of having to commit
itself on student ideas and opinions.
2) A petition signed by 35 per cent of a college,
say 700 students in a college of 2,000, can initiate
recall and a new election on any board seat.
3) A petition signed by 1,000 students can initiate
a referendum on any issue.
Further, we felt that other campus organizations
should meet with the board regularly throughout the
semester. To allow for this we created a president's
round table which would bring campus leaders
together to discuss issues of importance to students. .
Finally we provided for open hearings to take place
twice each semester to further broaden student
participation in the association.
The new board, as designed, can become an
effective arm of the student body. Because of its size
it can more readily deal with issues that come up
throughout the year. The old senate tended to be
little more than a resolution oriented debate society.
The actual work that was done occured in
committees and in the executive sessions. This seems
to have been true throughout its history.
This new board would develop its own policies
from their initial stages to the end, thus having more
direct input into their effectiveness. It would be
easier for the board to meet with committee
chairmen or other individuals such as the university
chancellor throughout the semester because of its size
and flexibility.
Perhaps most important of all the members of the
new board would be seen and held accountable as
individuals rather than lost in a sea of faces. It was
easy with the old senate to blend in and do little.
With the new board each member will have to
function since there will be no place to hide. Student
government will no longer be a game but will become
a functional and workable organization which will
indeed be able to initiate programs for its electorate,
the students.
ASUN Constitution Committee
Representation
35-member senate has one representative for each
S70 students, whereas a IS member board, as
proposed by the new constitution, would have each
member representing 1,330.
Supporters of the new constitution argue that a
smaller group is easier to work with and will get
things done. This is true. Inefficiency is an admitted
flaw of democracy. It is surprising that no one has
come out for a triumvirate or a monarchor would the
new constitution be a step in that direction?
Terry Lewis
Russ Semm
Sally LeBaron
Unwarranted criticism
Dear editor:
In reference to Steve Ferris' letter to the editor
(March IS) I believe that he made several
unwarranted criticisms of Roy Baldwin's guest'
opinion on a consumer cooperative.
Ferris points out that Baldwin's ideas are markedly
similar to those expressed earlier by Bruce Beecher.
Ferris fails to point out that Beecher and Baldwin
served as co-chairmen of the ASUN Student Services
Committee, which investigated the possibilities of
such a cooperative.
Ferris claims that Baldwin's proposal is not
specific. On comparison I find both candidates'
proposals rather general and lacking in definition.
More investigation must be made before specifics like
membership costs and services provided should be
announced.
I find Ferris' criticism lacking justification.
Alan Lukas
Dear editor:
As the weaknesses of the proposed ASUN
constitution become more apparent, the arguments of
support are becoming more ridiculous.
In Friday's (March 17) paper, Patti Kaminski said
"There's only a fraction of a difference between 35
people or IS people representing 20,000." Actually a
Academic censure
Dear editor:
I read with interest your second lead story,
"Wolfley urges Prokopt censure," in the Thursday,
March 16 issue of the Daily Nebraskan.
I note particularly the repeated references,
presumably by Wolfley, to the cowardice of faculty
members who do not support his resolution and the
blunt suggestion that their reasons are "fear of
economic repercussions."
It may come as a surprise to a champion of free
speech such as Wolfley that there may be pertinent
reasons for voting against his resolution which have
nothing to do with cowardice or fear of economic
repercussion. I would seriously doubt, for example,
that Wolfley is opposed' to due process in the
dismissal of faculty members. Nonetheless, dismissal
without due process is essentially what he proposes
should happen to Prokop on the basis of a single
offense by a person who is not a member of, and
therefore not bound by, the rules that are in force in
the academic community.
Under the circumstances, Wolfley's protestations
that his proposal is not politically motivated ring a bit
hollow.
Regardless of how one feels, however, it reflects
little credit on Wolfley that without possible prior
knowledge of the motives or considerations of other
staff members relative to his proposal, he is willing to
impugn their character and prejudge their motives in
advance of any action they may or may not take. I
wish to serve notice that his accusations are
unjustified in my case and in the cases of many other
staff members I know.
Richard K. Boohar
Associate Professor
of Zoology
with
Alex Taylor Friends
& neighbors
Ponhlng
Mon., March 27
$4.50 in advance
$5.00 at fho door
(advance tickets at Pershing. Magees, Musicland, & T.C.)
iijih I in mi. ,,ni -i m - II i i in i -
I !KMi J THE GODFATHER" Sv
Xw y STARTS MARCH 29TH!!
y mL J
MONDAY, MARCH 20,. ,1972
PAGE 5
p