4 University Daily Kansan / Friday, April 3. 1992 OPINION Students should get more control of club financing I have always found the Kansan to be a consistent deliverer of humor and misinformation. However, when I read Amy Francis' editorial concerning the partial allocation of student fees, or check-off plan, I could not laugh off. Contrary to the impression created by Francis, the rules and regulations that determine eligibility for funds and hold organizations responsible for how they spend the money would remain intact under the check-off plan. Francis also states that the plan "isa plan based on which club can make the most noise." I believe that Amy Francis has no idea what this plan is based on, since she failed to make inquiries of the people who have organized support for it before she published her uneducated and condemning opinion for a potential audience of 28,000 people. Aside from her questionable handling of the more technical aspects of the plan, she displays a profound lack of understanding of the ideas behind the plan. Laura Mullins Guest columnist One of her major problems with the check-off plan is "that it is not a need-based plan. "Well, that depends on how you look at it. I am going to take this as slowly as possible because the Kansan has already displayed an unwillingness to explore the different sides of this issue. Student Senate receives financing from the students. Organizations financed by Senate exist to serve the needs of students. If an organization is failing to meet the needs of the students, under the check-off plan, students would have the option of withdrawing their monetary support and giving it to an organization that does satisfy some of their needs. Many people would choose not to take this option and, by not filling out the form, automatically assign their money to Student Senate to distribute. That money would be the excess funds Francis refers to, not the loose change picked up off the floor after Senate meetings, as her tone suggests. In response to her concerns about clubs bombarding students with fliers to get their vote, I must assert that the best publicity an organization can get will involve actually producing results for the students it is intended to serve. Frankly, I don't understand why the thought of students actually knowing what their fee money pays for frightens Francis so much. This is not an issue of Student Senate wanting more input. It is an issue of students wanting control over where a mere $25 of their money goes each semester. The idea of having an "open meeting where students could express their opinions about how their fees are spent" is the type of patronizing suggestion that has caused people to search for other options such as the check-off plan. The most disturbing statement made by Francis is that the check-off plan "could result in some groups not even receiving enough money to survive "The special circumstances governing groups such as Associated Students of Kansas merit more space than I am allowed here. I will limit my argument to concern groups such as the Undergraduate Philosophy Club ($883 from Student Senate) and the Slightly Older Americans for Freedom ($370). Student organizations have access to many free things. Use of rooms in the Union during building hours and information tables at various locations on campus are two examples. The suggestion than an organization can be underfinanced out of existence relies on the idea that money is crucial for existence. A $1,000,000 budget will not take a group anywhere if it has no idea of where it wants to go. Conversely, a group that has strong ideas and is willing to work to support them can go far with $20. Under the check-off plan, student organizations would have to deliver something to the students in return for taking their money. This is a simple idea, even if the first stages of its execution may be complex. This idea is not asking for a more advisory position in Student Senate. It is asking for a renewal of the power of the individual to make a difference in an institution that was created to serve the people. Answers exist to all the questions that can be asked concerning this plan. For the sake of the idea, I encourage students to search for answers or at least consider the ones that others find. An open discourse will benefit us all infinitely more than a rash dismissal. Lata Munns Prairie Village sophomore THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN Clinton was not draft dodger He accepted his role in the war while Quayle used political clout to stay out of active combat duty In 1969, a 23-year-old Bill Clinton wrote to Col. Eugene Holmes, the director of the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas, "Tomany of us, it is no longer clear what is service and disservice." In 1992, it's a little clearer. Bill Clinton dodged the Vietnam draft for two months. What went on in his mind was typical for many of his generation — an anguished grapple with the unclear conceptions of right and wrong, of individual belief and of national duty. Clinton, while studying in Oxford, England, said he was wracked by loss of sleep and self-doubt. Four of his high school classmates had gone to Vietnam and died. On Oct. 30, 1969, Clinton made himself reeligible for the draft. On Dec. 1, his lottery number was chosen, 311, which assured him immunity. (195 was the highest number ever chosen for service.) Nevertheless, he did submit to the draft and very well could have gone to Vietnam. In a political climate of tension and betrayal, and under the governance of President Richard Nixon, who was elected in part because of his promise to end the hostilities with a "secret plan," Clinton made the hard choice. He put his sense of duty first. There can be no sharper contrast drawn than between Clinton and another potential commander in chief, Dan Quayle. Clinton, who had "written and spoken and marched against the war" resigned himself to it anyway; Quayle, meanwhile, approved of it but used his father's clout to evade it. Clinton passionately objected to the war but put his country before those objections; Quayle hailed the cause, hailed the war and stayed the hell away. Service entails a balance of criticism and commitment; Bill Clinton exemplifies both; Dan Quayle, neither. Martin Scherstuhl for the editorial board Buck season is open in D.C. Legislators waste a lot of time trying to get re-elected when they should be doing their job It always happens this way. Congress, facing controversy in an election year, begins the annual passing of the buck. This year, embroiled in a check-bouncing, inept-post-office-keeping, free-haircutting web of embarrassment , the buck is being passed as quickly as ever. In an interview with The New York Times, Robert S. Walker, the chief deputy Republican whip explained it this way. "What we're seeing here is a kind of circular firing squad, with everybody standing in a circle pointing fingers at the person beside them." Walker said. More and more, the ax is falling toward Speaker of the House Thomas Foley. Rumors persist that he will have to resign amid this controversy. He claims nothing of the sort ever has been discussed. The real problem with finger pointing this year, and every year, is that nothing else is getting done. The Congress is spending its time trying to get rid of privileges in an effort to appease the people at home. As our nation wallows in a recession, the bickering about discount stationary continues. Congress should be subject to the same laws that it has established to govern the people. If its members are bouncing checks, they should be disciplined. In addition, they should not be living high on the hog at the voters' expense. However, they could show more integrity by not worrying about their un-electable hides and start worrying about the issues. If legislators establish a comprehensive policy to fix the recession, then they can all get free hair cuts. If they can develop legislation to help AIDS victims, then we, the voters, could spring for dinner. If they help solve our complex foreign policy situation, then they can all get discount stationary. If they would do what we elected them to do, and do it honestly, then these bonuses would never be questioned. The real problem with Congress is its accountability. U.S. Legislators need to shed the Santa Claus image of coming back to their constituents with the biggest possible present. Instead of working on the things that will save their office, they need to work on what will help. Not just because it too would get them re-elected, but because it is right. Members of the editorial board are: Alexander Bloemhof, Jim Brown, J.R. Clairborne, Mark Coatney, Amy Francis, Tiffany Harness, Tiffany Lasha Hurt, Kate Kelley, Julie Eileen Li, Stephen Martino, David Mitchell, Chris Moeser, Beth Randolph, Martin Scherstuhl, Julie Wasson, Frank William and Sarah Zercher Jim Brown for the editorial board Business leader needed If the business of America is business, why is it that there is not a proven business person in the Oval Office? Because of the questionable financial and operational policies from the Carter, Reagan and Bush administrations, government can be compared to a colossal bulimic teenager badly in need of a purge. Can Bush or Clinton rescue the United States from becoming a big couch potato of a nation? Bill Clinton is the governor of Arkansas. Have you ever been to Arkansas? Take away the corporate headquarters of Wal-Mart and Tyson Foods, and you're left with the unofficial capital of the KKK. Bill is the best presidential coverboy since Gary Hart, but he hardly has the hard-core business background that the country needs. George Bush has less business experience than his son Neil. George should admit that he is from New England, not Texas, and run for secretary of state. He is great with foreign pol- Unfortunately, they will not be on the '92 tick et Lettersto the editor There are many business people who have been mentioned in the same breath as the presidency, including Lec laocuca. However, my candidates for president and vice president of the United States are, respectively, the CEO and the president of Kodak, Colby Chandler and Kay Whitmore. As a team, they turned around the stumbling photo giant. "Kodak's leaders驶 decisively and were willing to embrace changes, no matter how painful they might be," ("When Giants Learn to Dance," 1989). The only business person who has indicated an interest in the White House is Texan H. Ross Perot. He has indicated that he may run as an independent candidate. If he does run, Bush and Clinton are going to have a hard time getting my vote. Doug Burts Dodge City graduate student Thanks, Rov Williams Four years ago, there was an unfamiliar name all over the local news, a guy from North Carolina named Roy Williams. A few months later, I heard the new Kansas basketball coach make the comment that he appreciated the applause at "Later with Roy Williams" but that he knew it was for the KU basketball coach and not specifically Roy Williams. At the time he was probably right, but that changed very soon. The fans already knew what the media eventually realized: Roy Williams was the next great Kansas coach. Taking a team crippled by probation to 19 victories was much more than anyone could have expected. The following year, an 30-victory season left little doubt about the great coaching abilities of Roy Williams. And no Kansas fan will be able to forget the excitement of the brilliant run to the championship game in 1991. Great things continued this year with the Big Eight crown and tournament victory. Everyone knows that one game does not make a season, and the 1992 year was another great example of what outstanding coaching and the best players around can do to ignite brilliant basketball and another exciting season. Don't let one day of not being the best run a season of so many great accomplishments. realize this is not an easy time for any Kansas basketball fan and is especially tough on those who make KU buos so important to all of us. But I'm sure I speak for all the fans when I say, *I am* a KU fan.* Scott Endsley Overland Park senior Abortion is not cure Kill babies because they might grow up to be criminals? Sure, and no, I cannot loan you my hammer because I am going to town tomorrow. If Ms. Gross is just looking for an excuse, any excuse will do. Personally, I cannot stomach the idea of promoting abortion as population control or crime control. Education is the key to both. Lori Hope KANSAN STAFF Culaba, Brazil, junior TIFFANYHARNESS Editor VANESSA FUHRMANS Managing editor TOM EBLEN General manager,news adviser Editors News Mike Andrews Editorial Beth Randolph Planning Lara Gold Campus Eric Gorski/Rochelle Olson Sports Eric Nelson Photo Julie Jacobson Features Debbie Myers Graphics Alimee Brainard/ Jeff Meesey JENNIFER CLAXTON Business manager JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser JAYSTEINER Retail sales manager Business Staff Campus sales mgr Bribe仁德勝 Regional sales mgr Rich Harsbarger National sales mgr Scott Hanna Co-op sales mgr Arne Johnson Production mgrs Kim Wallace Marketing director Lia Keeler Creative director Leanne Bryant Classified mgr Chip Ki Business Staff by David Rosenfield Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and homework, or faculty or staff position. Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be pho- top row: The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newroom, 111 Snapper Fint Hall. Stick copyright 1992 by D. Rosenfield