▶ entertainment
▶ events
▶ issues
▶ music
▶ art
hilltopics
the university
daily kansan
tuesday ▲
4.13.99 ▲
eight.a ▲
Senate referendums
Wheels turning in effort to create public transportation
By Nadia Mustafa
nmustafa@kansan.com
Kansas staff writer
the University of Kansas and the City of Lawrence will be one step closer to achieving a joint citywide bus system after Student Senate elections this
week if students vote in favor of pursuing such a system.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the student body will decide through a referendum on the ballot whether it wants Senate, the administration and city officials to coordinate a citywide transportation system between KU On Wheels and the city.
Nicole Skalla, KU On Wheels transportation coordinator, and Holly Krebs, holdover senator and transportation coordinator-elect, constructed the proposal to gain administrative backing for a public transportation system.
They said that the University's support was key to coordinating with city officials and to lobbying the state legislature next fall to alter a student fee status that disallowed the use of the campus transportation fee to finance nonstudent programs. This fee status is an obstacle that must be overcome before a joint bus system can be implemented because a citywide transportation system would benefit not only students, but also other Lawrence residents.
skalla, Krebs and other senators who
Skalla, Krebs and other senators are members of what is now called the transportation task force have been examining the issue of public transportation for almost a year.
Most senators said that the major issues involved with negotiating a joint system would be cost and student control.
Skalla said that the estimated operating costs of a public transportation system would be about $3 million a year. She said that because the University probably would be able to foot its portion of the bill within KU On Wheels' existing $1.5 million budget, student fees would not increase. However, she predicted that if fees did increase, it would not be for another two years and
two years and the increase would only be about $1 or $2.
Skalla said that the city could request federal government funding for up to 80 percent of the system's capital expenditures and up to 50 percent of its yearly operating costs. Also, she said, the state legislature would probably increase funding for transportation this session.
Krebs said that she hoped next year's Senate would be supportive of a public transportation system. She said she was enthusiastic that all three new city commissioners were in favor of working toward a citywide transportation system.
"We have the most public transportation-friendly city commission we've ever had in Lawrence." Krebs said.
If the referendum passes, the task force will encourage the city commission to make public transportation a budget priority.
Mayor Marty Kennedy said that he was in favor of working with the University toward a joint bus system and that he was glad students were getting involved.
If students, administrators and city officials decide to coordinate a citywide bus system, it would be gradually implemented, beginning with minor changes such as bus routes in small Lawrence neighborhoods that could link to KU On Wheels routes. Skalla said it would
probably be a 10-to 15-year process.
Tom Moore, Student Legislative Awareness Board campus director and task force member, talked to city commissioners this week about the formation of a formal transportation task force consisting of city officials, administrators, students and Lawrence citizens who are members of transportation-related interest groups.
The task force, which would be similar to the alcohol task force, would allow a collective, in-depth examination of the issue by various members of the Lawrence community. Moore said that it would be a step toward finalizing details such as hiring a consulting firm, costs and the number of buses.
"We all agree on the problem, we just don't agree on a solution," he said.
Members of the city commission did not dismiss the idea of forming a task force, but said that they wanted to wait until next month to decide
Both Chancellor Robert
Hemenway and Provost David Shu-lenburger said they did not oppose the idea of a public transportation system. But, they questioned how much the system would cost and who would pay for it.
Vote to decide fate of new student recreation center
By Nadia Mustafa
nmustafa@kansan.com
Kansan staff writer
Students who oppose an eventual $49 fee increase to finance a new campus recreation center may have no choice if the student body approves the project this week, an issue that has recently become tangled in Student Senate campaign politics.
The recreation task force wants to model the proposed new $16 million campus recreation center on Kansas State University's center. Contributed art
A proposal created by the recreation task force for a new $16 million free-standing campus recreation center will head the list of three reverendums on the ballot during Senate elections Wednesday and Thursday. The task force, which is composed of students and administrators, began research and surveys for the proposal last semester.
If the referendum passes, the Board of Regents must approve the project
this summer and the state legislature would review it next spring. If approved, construction would begin in fall 2000 and the center would open for 18-hour student recreational use in summer 2002.
Student fees would not increase for the next academic year, but would increase $15 during 2000-2001 and $34 for 2001-2002—a total of $49. Intramural sports and the KU Fit program would be free for students who used the new center.
Kevin Yoder, student body president and task force chairman, said that the task force's proposal would be the best use of student fees.
"This proposal is adequate to support many of our recreational needs, while at the same time not being extravagant or overdone," he said.
The center would probably be located south of
However, Karen Gallagher, dean of education.
Last week, Provost David Shulenburger affirmed that students would continue to have access to recreational facilities at Robinson Center if a new center were built. He said that academic endeavors would continue to have first claim on Robinson because it was built with state funds for academic purposes.
Watkins Health Center. It would include four multi-purpose gymnasiums, two racquetball courts, a cardiovascular fitness and weight training center, aerobic and dance studio, suspended walking and jogging track, rock climbing wall, martial arts studio, multi-purpose combative arts room, activities lounge, cubicles for sports clubs, locker rooms and student service center.
said that soon there would less space available for student recreational use at Robinson because needs for instructional and non-credit activity space were both increasing. She said that Health, Sport and Exercise Science courses such as racquetball, badminton and bowling had been expanding during the past two years, and that Robinson would not be able to cater to both the recreational and academic needs of students.
Some students who oppose the task force's proposal suggested an addition to the south or west of Robinson instead of a new center.
Tom Waehler, planning and programming coordinator for design and construction management, said that an addition might not be a good long-term investment. He said that pressure would continue to grow for using Robinson solely for academic
and research purposes.
Yoder said that the new center would not solve all of the University of Kansas' recreational problems, but that students would have the option of making additions in the future.
In a phone survey of about 460 students conducted by the task force last November, 78.4 percent of those surveyed said that they were satisfied with the quality of services and activities at the University. Only 12.9 percent responded that they were unsatisfied.
But, in the same survey, 67.4 percent of students surveyed reported that they felt that new or improved recreational sports facilities should be a priority for the University, while 26.9 percent said that it shouldn't be a priority.
Hate crime proposal set to face referendum
By Nadia Mustafa
nmusta@kansan.com
Kansan staff writer
The University of Kansas may consider implementing a zero-tolerance policy for hate crimes and sexual assault, a policy that more than 1,000 students favor.
The policy proposal will be one of three referendums on the ballot for a student body vote during Student Senate elections Wednesday and Thursday. If the referendum passes, an unofficial group called Students Against Hate, which was formed this semester to pursue a zero
tolerance policy, will present the proposal to the administration.
proposed to the administration.
If the administration approves,
the policy would require that the
University expel students convicted of committing violent hate crimes or sexual assault.
Matt Caldwell, 1998 KU graduate and Lawrence activist, is a member of Students Against Hate. He said that he hoped the policy would be implemented within a year.
"Fundamentally, we live in a racist, patriarchal society." Caldwell said. "By increasing awareness, we can start to break
Caldwell
down those constructions and start to see the incidents. We're looking at changing the way people think."
Caldwell defined a hate crime as an act motivated by hate and characterized by violence or continual threats indicating the potential for violent behavior against an individual. He said that the policy would not inhibit freedom of speech because it was not aimed at hate speech without the potential of violence.
Caldwell referred to an incident earlier this semester in which a student was arrested for burning a swastika into the carpet of the lobby at Oliver Hall. He said that the general consensus was that it was a hate crime, but that the individual would not be expelled under a tolerance policy because it was an isolated incident that could be considered a case of freedom of speech. He said that because no one was hurt, the individual would probably only be convicted of property damage.
But, Caldwell referred to another incident last year in which two students damaged the car of a student they thought was gay and threw rocks at him, while they chased him down the hill near the Campanile, shouting offensive slurs and death threats. Under the proposed policy's definition of a hate crime, the assailants would be expelled if the victim suffered bodily harm because it would be classified as a violent crime. Furthermore, if a court of law determined that the death threats carried violent potential, the assailants could also be expelled on that count.
In addition, Caldwell said, concerns about the constitutionality of a zero-tolerance policy were unfounded because the Constitution allowed state universities to reserve the right to expel students for certain types of behavior, such as cheating and plagiarism, as KU policy does.
Richard Levy, professor of law, said that the University could implement a zero-tolerance policy if it was not contrary to state and federal regulations.
Any University policy would have to be within the general scope of authority of regulations on campus;" he said.
Levy said that he did not foresee any conflicts with students' constitutional rights to free speech within the violent crime component of the policy. He said that punishing threats was more complicated, but that he viewed hate threats as more similar to crimes than free speech.
"It's clearly not regarded as a violation of freedom of speech to punish someone for making threats," Levy said.
Caldwell said that the policy proposal was a response to a nationwide phenomenon in which hate crime assailants were not prosecuted because of vague federal policies.
Caldwell said that hate crimes at the University were increasing, but that it was difficult to rely on statistics because most incidents were not reported. Thus, he said, awareness about hate crimes was low.
Last year, the KU Public Safety Office reported five hate crimes and three cases of sexual assault.
Chris Keary, assistant director of the KU Public Safety Office, said that the Office would support a policy that would combat hate crimes.
Chancellor Robert Hemenway said that he was concerned about hate crimes, but that the University would not step away from due process, which he said was required by law and the administration's interpretation of the principle of fairness.
it has not yet been proven whether a zero-tolerance policy would violate due process.
Caldwell said that if the policy were implemented, a board composed of students and faculty members could review cases of hate crimes and assault accus. The University now has a similar board, but Caldwell said that it was ineffective in regard to hate crimes, primarily because there was no zero-tolerance policy in place.
"This is not a vindictive effort on anybody's part," he said. "We just want increase awareness and decrease incidents."
---
1