v.
Council
candidates
endorsed
jor
in
vihstad
different
drummer
Editor's note: The different drummer column is solely an
expression of John Vihstadt's opinion. The political
endorsements included below are not necessarily those of the
Daily Nebraskan editorial staff.
Lincoln voters will be deciding on a number of critically
important matters as they go to the polls next Tuesday, all of
which deserve comment.
In regard to the City Council, three candidates merit
support. Sue Bailey would be a welcome addition to Lincoln
government. A former officer in the League of Women Voters,
she is also a member of the Crime Commission, the advisory
committee of the League of Human Dignity and has served on
the Lincoln Goals and Policies Committee. Bailey's civic
background and compassionate, people-to-people approach to
urban problems make her an exemplary choice.
A man of Max Denney's caliber is not easy to come by. The
folksy 58-year-old brother of former U.S. Representative Bob
Denney has a wealth of experience behind him in all levels of
government. He is remembered for his term as Administrative
Assistant to ex-governor Robert Crosby (1953-55). His
cautious, deliberate manner will provide "ed balance to a
city council that too often plunges i.uo ihings without
adequate study and consideration.
For spot number three on the Council I recommend
attorney Bill Thierstein. Thierstein has called for more citizen
and neighborhood input on the matter of zoning and opposes
hasty, unplanned development of the Stevens Creek area. A
member of the Nebraska Council on Alcohol Education, the
36 year-old Thierstein will lend dynamic, progressive
leadership to the city.
For the Board of Education, Ted Dewey, Wallace Rudolph,
and Martin A. Dinsmore stand out. Dewey was appointed to a
vacancy on the board last fall, and deserves election on his
own for his performances in office so far.
Rudolph, a UNL law professor, will provide a challenge to
some of the more backward concepts still harbored by the
Board.
Dinsmore urges increased parent involvement in the
education of their children.
There are three city charter amendments on the ballot, all
of which will have a long-range effect on the city regardless of
the outcome.
Amendment No. 1 clears the way for City Council election
by district instead of the present at-large basis. No one needs
to be reminded that district elections would provide more
equitable representation, closer and more responsible to the
people.
A case in point: while more than 40 per cent of all
Lincolnites live north of "0" street, not one of the seven City
Council members is from that area. Minorities of all kinds are
effectively disenfranchised by the current method of selection.
Perhaps the most controversial issue to be decided is
Amendment No. 2, "Reconsideration, Planning,and
Construction of Major Street and Road Projects" as it is
euphemistically called. The amendment, a disastrous creatine
concocted by the Coalition Against the Radial, calls for either
a unanimous vote of the City Council or a majority vote of the
Lincoln electorate before any street project costing over S15
million may be implemented.
Granted, passage of this amendment will kill the Northeast
Radial, which may or may not be a good thing. But it will also
throw the fate of badly-needed streets improvement into utter
chaos.
The unanimous City Council vote requirement will put into
the hands of one council man immense power to determine
the destiny of roads improvements, leading to frustration and
devisiveness instead of cooperation and majority decision.
The third and final amendment will raise the annual salary
of Lincoln City Council members to $4,000. No. 3 must pass
in order to upgrade the quality of the council. With the
present payment of just $20 per weekly meeting, only the
relatively wealthy andor independent business people can
afford to serve. Larger salaries would encourage more diverse
representation and provide an incentive for council members
to give more time to their elective duties.
. : 7
btuaent regent
violates 1 -man,
1 -vote principle
Doug Voeger is a senior majoring in political science.
by Doug Voegler
I am writing this with the hope that a few state
senators will read and consider it. I, as a member of
the University student body, am not in favor of
LB323, introduced by Hastings Sen. Richard Marvel.
LB323 would submit to the voters a constitutional
amendment to place on the Board of Regents "not
less than one, nor more than three full-time students
of the University of Nebraska." The students shall
have a total of one vote.
To my way of thinking, this is inherently unfair. I
totally agree with the arguments in favor of having a
student member on the Board of Regents in an
advisory capacity, He should have every privilege that
a present regent has, except the power to cast a vote.
He should be allowed to sit in all closed sessions and
to discuss freely. Once he is given the vote,
however, the evils of this sytem outweigh any
conceivable good. The University is not a private
college. It is supported by the tax money of the state.
Therefore, all people should have an equal vote in
how it is run. The present system divides the state
into districts of equal population. This is fair.
What LB323 does, is give the student a special
franchise not given to any other group in the state.
University students, numbering about 40,000, are
given a member on the Bosrd of Regents. He has an
equal vote with a member who is elected from a
district with about 200,000 people. We are living in
the times of "one man, one vote." LB323 is in no
way compatible with this concept. It is said that
students have a special concern with the University
which merits this unfairness. Was it not the argument
prior to redistricting in the 1960's that the "rural
areas" had a special interest which needed
protection?
As most students, I am a registered voter in one of
the counties of Nebraska. No student is registered to
vote "at the University." As a student at the
University, I would be allowed to vote for a student
member to the board, presumably at a campus
election, and then again in my regular regents disti ict.
A voter outstate could only vote once. In effect, I
have one and one-third representatives on the board
opposed to the regular voter's one.
It is argued that being a student at the University
gives the student a special interest in the University
which is greater than anyone else's. First of all, so do
farmers, faculty members, patents and minority
groups. Do we enlarge the membership of the board
to 100 and then devise a system of representation as
used by the 1972 Democratic Convention? Given the
diversity of students, the present disinterest of
students in the government of the University's affairs
and the present status of participation in student
elections (13 per cent at UNL just recently), how can
the right of students as a class over other gioups to
have a representative on the Board of Regents be
justified?
I am not saying that the present structure of the
Board of Regents is perfect. However, efforts at
change should be directed to equitable solutions such
as doubling the size of the board (thereby reducing
district sizes), and shortening the terms of office to
make the regents more responsive.
It seems that we are regressing fiom what this
nation was designed to be. Group pride is wondeiful,
but it is being carried to frightening extremes. It is
assumed by some that the interests of blacks can be
fairly represented only by a black, the interests of
women, only by a woman, the interests ol ihe
Mexican-Americans only by a Mexican-Amei ican
Now we hear from some that the interests' ol
univeristy students cannot be fairly and effectively
represented unless there is a student member on the
Board of Regents.
It is sad that ASUN is wasting an enoimous
amount of time and energy on this poorly conceived
notion.
suggestion
box
Vihstadt, journalists twist
committee woman's remarks
Blane L. Osterman is a junior in the
College of Agriculture.
by Blane L. Osterman
"The Watergate affair disturbs me
greatly. It is beginning to be evident that
Richard Nixon's relationship with people
involved in the Watergate goes clear back
to the Bay of Pigs. When the whole sordid
mess finally comes to light, I think there
will even be a case made of the
connection between people involved in
the Watergate and those involved in the
Kennedy assassination. It may even come
to the place where Congress will have to
move swiftly to begin impeachment
proceedings before Richard Nixon
decides to declare martial law and we
have no government as we know it."
That is what Frances Ohmstede, state
Democratic national commit teewoman,
said to the Nebraska Young Democrats
at its recent convention. It is from this
statement that journalists of this state,
and the Daily Nebraskan's own John
Vihstadt (Daily Nebraskan, April 1?),
misquoted Ohmstede.
Vihstadt, who more than likely was
quoting reporter Larry Wilson of the
Omaha World Herald, left out neatly half
of Ohmstede's original remarks. Her full
remarks make it clear that she believes
Nixon had some type of relationship with
the people involved in the Wateigate
burglary, She does not implicit.; the
President in the Kennedy assassination,
but only suggests that the individuals
involved in both the Watergate and the
assassination can be traced back to the
Bay of Pigs.
The different drummer column fuilher
stated that Ohmstede said Nixon's
impeachment is "the only way to leiain
democracy." What she iea!ly said was
that "it may evn conn; to Ihe place
where Congress will have to move swiftly
to begin impeachment proceedings befnie
Richard Nixon decides to declaie rnaitial
law and we have1 no government as we
know it." Hci remarks, if taken in the
context of the entire speech m which she
made a plea to the Young Democrats to
get involved and be the watchdogs ovei
government, are perfectly justified.
The enthusiastic applause Ohmstede
received from tin; Young Democrats was
for her call for us to become involved in
the political process of this country. She
urged people to work for 1he government
ind democracy that tins country has
developed undei, not the kind of
government Richard Nixon seems to be
developing -a government of deceit and
dishonest y .
thursday, april 26, 1973
daily nebraskan
p.i'j; b