opinion
Page 4 Summer Nebraskan, Thursday, June 29, 1978
Priorities needed when budgets are cut
The University of Nebraska will apparently
get off easy when the Legislature brings its
special session to a close. Two bills being
considered would affect the university by
limiting to a five percent increase the total
amount of money the Legislature could
appropriate to all state agencies.
But, according to the attorney general's
office, because the University gets money from
sources other than tax dollars-student fees,
tuition, etc.-the use of these monies would not
be. subject to limitations.
This also means that the University could
accept federal funds for research and other
projects-$16.6 million last year.
But while the University may get off easier
than some were expecting, budget cuts are
bound to continue. As one official put it, "If
they're going to limit the state, they're sure not
going to let the University get away scott free."
Nor should they.
The University, as it has been attempting,
should become even more alert to the places
where the budget can be trimmed. An example
of a wise decision was the decision last spring to
eliminate some rarely used services at the
Student Health Center.
And even more important, the University
should become aware of where the budget
should not be trimmed. An example of a
mistake in this area was the suggestion earlier
this spring that Regent's tuition and some other
scholarships be eliminated to decrease operating
costs.
In short, the University needs to set some
priorities-and the maintaining of academic
excellence should be placed high on the list.
Letters policy
The Summer Nebraskan will publish
letters to the editor and guest editorials.
The editor will decide which letters are
published and reserves the right to
condense submissions. Timeliness and
clarity of writing will be considered.
Ail letters must be signed.
Letters should be received by the
Summer Nebraska Monday prior to the
date of desired publication.
II
New stadium build-up torn down
It seems that news of Proposition 13, the
California constitutional amendment which
slashes local government spending by 60 percent
has not yet reached Regents Hall.
On May 21 Regents Robert Prokop of
Papillion and Kermit Wagner of Schuyler
suggested that UN-L build a new 25 million
dollar football stadium somewhere between
Omaha and Lincoln and have the Legislature
finance it through a five-cent tax on a package
of cigarettes. .
No action was taken on their idea-plans for a
neJw stadium sprout and die like weeds every
year-but the fact that they even thought of
making such a proposal raises interesting
questions.
letter
V J
First, why spend 25 Hllion dollars on a
building few want and fewer need?
Yes, there are Nebraskans who can't get
tickets, but as Memorial Stadium is already the
sixth largest stadium in the United States, their
plans for a yet bigger arena is toying dangerously
with the law of supply and demand.
What happens if Nebraska suffers a mediocre
season? Will Nebraskans support a team that has
no chance at a bowl game9
In the past, they have not. In the 40s and 50s
the stadium often sat half empty. Indeed, last
year's plan to show home games live on a Spor's
Complex video screen was abandoned because of
poor attendance.
But even if a new stadium made good business
sense, is now the right time to build? The
University budget is already strained to the
breaking point. Teachers' salaries at UN-L are
the second lowest in the Big Eight; student
tuition is the second highest. Even so, the
College of Business Administration refused to
admit over 2000 students last year because it
lacked the funds to hire enough professors. Why
spend money on recreation when students are
being denied an education?
But while UN-L's budget has been tight in the
past, it will soon become tighter as the
taxpayers' revolt takes effect. In Nebraska, a
petition drive to enact a constitutional
amendment limiting government spending is well
under way; the Unicameral special session was
conducted under massive public pressure to
approve such a bill.
So we have a most interesting situation:
Taxpayers clamor for a limit on spending and a
reduction of taxes. Legislators are biting their
fingernails over how education and other
essential services can be saved. And Prokop and
Wagner are concerned about getting money for
nothing more essential than another football
field.
On whose support then, do they base their
proposal? Not on the wishes of the students who
have always opposed any new stadium or
stadium addition as unnecessary and
uneconomical. Indeed, in past years, Board
members have denied student requests on
alcohol, visitation and funding of speakers
programs on the grounds that the Board
represents the interests and opinions of the
taxpayers, not the students.
Yet Prokop and Wagner are flatly ignoring
those same interests and opinions; their call for
another 25 million in higher taxes starkly
contrasts with the wishes of their constituents
for lower taxes.
Thus comes the most important question of
all: Are Prokop and Wagner proposing a new
stadium because constituents want it-although
they obviously don't want to pay for it-or
because they want it? Are they representing
districts or themselves.
And if the answer is themselves, then what
about other issues? How often have individual
regents ignored the popular will in favor of their
own beliefs? How many times have student
requests and students' rights been denied on
grounds that a regent merely represented his
district, when in fact he represented only
himself? And how often have regents
camouflaged their own personal prejudices and
beliefs behind a self-centered veil of public
opinion?
Just ask the nearest non-political speaker.
Mike Gibson
Senior
Omaha
