Opinion
Page 4 University Daily Kansan, March 23, 1982
Trying something new
It's spring, and time for the Student Senate to turn its collective mind to thoughts of money.
Yesterday, the Senate's Budget Committee began the tedious and time-consuming process of sifting through requests from 60 student groups, deciding who deserves a chunk of the $55,000 in student activity fee money the Senate has to allocate.
The committee will then send its recommendations to the full Senate for consideration April 6-8.
Budget hearings have evolved into Senate's raison d'etre. Student senators and committee members may be paper tigers when they cry for beer in the stadium or try to influence University policy, but they do have direct and real control over the allocation of student activity fee money—more than half a million dollars including the money allocated to revenue code groups like Recreation Services and the University Daily Kansan.
In the past, spring budget hearings have become a haphazard three-ring circus. Actually, a five-ring circus would be a more accurate description.
The hearings were conducted by five of the Senate's standing committees. With the
exception of a dedicated few, attendance was poor, often with only four or five people making decisions.
Funding philosophies varied widely from committee to committee, resulting in inconsistent recommendations and chaos on the Senate floor.
But this year, the Senate is trying something new. One group, a subcommittee of the Finance and Auditing Committee, will hear all of the budget requests.
And the five committees devoted so much time to budget hearings that they didn't do much of anything else.
The next two weeks will be the test for the new committee. The 30 committee members will have to put in long hours to pare down the $125,000 in requests.
If the committee members take their responsibility seriously, the result will be a more efficient and equitable allocation of funds.
There are many more pleasant ways to spend six evenings than haggling over money for film rental and staplers. But budget hearings are a necessary evil.
And the new committee has a chance to make them a little less evil and a little more fair.
HE MADE ME WHOLE!
©1982 MAMI NEWS
Recall committee fans spark into roaring political blaze
Pull up a chair, Lawrence, Students, if you like to feel a little political heat, nav attention.
With their 3,761 recall petition signatures validated, the Lawrence Committee now prepares upon Tom Glasson, and the battle for the heart of the Lawrence City Commission continues.
Of course, the committee is just exercising its civic right and responsibility to weed out the sort of fellow who'd do what Gleason did. The man dared write a letter requesting a city employee's
Buford Watson, city manager, has so far managed to cling to his piece of the payroll, and
SCOTT FAUST
the commission isn't inclined to oust him. But can you imagine Gleason's gall?
First came the mail panic, then the spat over Bryan ("Santa Claus") Anderson's toy factory at 600 Massachusetts St. Finally, of course, came the election itself, with candidates Nancy Shontz and Gleason joining the Lone Ranger-turned-mayor, Marcel Francisco.
Harder still to imagine is the committee's gall in framing events in the above terms. Gleason "has got to go" because there's an opportunity to be rid of him. That is, a chance to fine-tune the outcome of last April's election in another round of factional fistfulness.
Tables were turned on the status quo. The Lawrence Committee wants nothing more than the fact that a particular table is being created.
Ed Carter, one of two former mayorors on the committee and the heavy at "600 Mass," "got out just in time. Power slipped away from the Don's Steak House-West Lawrence crowd in a hurry.
The Oread neighborhood in particular acts as a cultural heart for the small-is-beautiful movement. Residents there prize preservation of ideals rooted here before the Oread Neighborhood Association had cleaned up the blocks of gingerbread homes.
These ideals—self-sufficiency, bike path and
Lawrence as more than a giant 23rd Street-
tower—are also the hallmarks of this
city.
What a perfect paradigm. The city was about to put up parking lot, a la Joni Mitchell, and the new city park, a Lauren Milligan project.
Given this opening, a rally to whip up a voter
who had been hung up on a death sentence
did let Sabbat and Glsipp slip into position.
Now, by pressing its advantage to throw one of the burns out, the Lawrence Committee attempts to balloon a bit of political ineptitude into an issue. The recall vote, held probably during finals, will be an unscheduled exercise in participatory factionalism. Refusing to drop the subject, the committee demands that we all take sides on this one.
"If Gleason, Shootz and Francisco get on the commission, they will have gone from diversity to control," the Journal-World quoted Carter just before the election. "And that's their goal."
He implies that control comes from somewhere, that someone is in the process losing control.
Neither of the power centers can be specifically defined, but vague outlines are possible. On one hand, there's the Lawrence-assuburb, business faction represented by the committee. Economic growth—for its own sake—is central.
Restaurateur Bob Schumann, who lost his seat in the election, belongs here, for example. Schumann was just elected president of the Downtown Lawrence Association. During the campaign, he warned that a Shontz-Gleason-Francisco triumvirate could mean "more people-type programs," increased city spending, higher taxes and more regulations. Horrors.
For the other faction, "four-plex" is a fighting word, and Buford Watson just might be an enemy of the people. The folks are sometimes good with no "N-growth" gets tassed around by the opposition.
Problem is, it's got to be easier to draw the "dump Gleason" supporters, who seek change, then the people who aren't so upset. Why should they have to go to the polls to keep things as they are? How can you challenge the recall's legal validity, Gleason is going to get out and campaign to stay put.
Maybe Commissioner Barkley Clark, KU law professor with electoral staying power, will have the last word. With Gleason gone and the commission forced to name a successor, Clark and Don Binns could oppose the mayor and Shontz. Then the city attorney would have to decide. Or Clark could do otherwise and deny the committee its type of commissioner.
A still more pleasing scenario has Gleason remaining right where he is. All it would take is some activism from all who love tofu and from those who want to eat them, where true expansion isn't bound to growth.
USS 5894 (published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, Sunday and Tuesday for student-class postage paid at Lawrence, KS). The University of Kansas is a non-profit boarding school for students 16 years or older outside the county. Student subscriptions are # B4 semester fee. Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kanaan, Pint Hail, The University of Kansas, KS.
KANSAN
The University Daily
Editor Business Manager
Vanessa Herron Natte Juline
Managing Editor Tracee Hamilton
Editorial Editor Kathryn Edwards
Campus Editor Gene George
Associate Campus Editor Jane Meadt
Associate Campus Director Joe Been, Renée Chaney
Assignment Editor Steve Robrain
Sports Editor Ron Haggustom
Associate Sports Editor Gianni Stipplo
Entertainment Editor Coral Beach
Makeup Editors Jane Manesh, Lillian Davis, Shannon Appleton
Edward Lemane, Teresa Riordan, Lain Maegsh
Photo Editor Ben Bigler
Staff Photographers Jon Harney, John Kanhanker, Bob Greenman, Tracy Thompson, Mark McDonald
Head Chief Chef Jane Bryant
Columbia Candy Campbell, Chris Colder, Dan Torchia, Joilly Walt, Lisa Bellen
Bren Abbott, Dana Bowers, Chris Colder, Dan Torchia, Joilly Walt, Lisa Bellen
Tom Bontrager, Jeff Thomas, Terese Borden, Bill Williams, Bileen Williams
Staff Artists Jan Bryan, John Keeling, Lerraine Ragland
Staff Writers Pam Aliley, Keith Harrison, Jann Gunn
Retail Sales Manager Ann Horbmer
Nationale Sales Manager Howard Shalkens
Campus Sales Manager Yew Foo
Classified Manager Sharon Bodin
Production Manager Larry Lethengolin
Tartrison Manager Sharon Bodin
Retail Sales Representatives Barba Burn, Larry Burnmaster, Susan Cookey, Richard Dagan, Jer Grimes,
Amy Jones, Matter Langton, Philipp Marbachs, Lakehinda Mindy Moore,
Chuck McMullen, Robert McMullen
Chuck Blomberg, Kathy Dugan, Denise A. Popovits, Vee Zakaryan
Campus Interns Sales and Marketing Adviser General Manager and News Advisor Rick Munke
Gosh, Wally, now we're not typical
Television gossip has it that network officials are considering the revival of the old "Leave It To Be Aware" television series. Yes, fans, a whole new series, not just reruns.
However, the show's writers will need a lot of time to update the original series situation so it will be possible to do this.
In the original family situation, father Ward Cleaver worked at a vaguely defined white collar job. His beautiful wife June always wore dresses and was a full-time housewife. Older son Wally was an All-American high school boy in a crew cut and a letter sweater. Younger son Beaver always got into trouble, causing Ward to deliver his fatherly lectures while June worked in background whining, "But, Ward, don't you think you're being too hard on the Beaver?"
The whole Cleaver family lived in a typical house in a tiny new suburb somewhere in Arkansas.
But their situation isn't typical anymore. According to government statistics from March 1980, only 11 percent of American households include a father who is the sole wage earner, a mother who is a full-time homemaker, and one or more children. Also, one-third of those full-time homemakers are planning to look for jobs.
The following are some possible script scenarios that might help the scriptwriters make the Cleavers more representative of Americans today:
- Because almost twenty years have elapsed since "Leave It to Beaver" was last aired, Beaver and Wally have moved away, leaving Ward and June at home to harme about in a suburban house that now seems too big and clumsy, and then they shocked when word got around that Beaver had died in Vietnam, but they were relieved to find he wasn't dead. Rather, he had teamed up with brother Walt, and they were acting in second-rate situation comedies at dinner playhouse where the two sisters and Ward and June are both married, and Ward and June write frequently, asking when they will be
blessed with grandchildren. Beaver and Wally respond that they don't plan on having kids because life on the dinner playhouse circuit is too hectic to be able to raise children properly.
Thirty percent of American households consist of married couples with no children, or none.
- Or Ward could have left June for another woman shortly after the original series ended, leaving her alone in that house in the suburbs while Wally and Beaver travel the country acting in dinner playhouses. They occasionally send her money, but it's difficult for June to
JOLYNNE
WALZ
make ends meet, to maintain that huge
bedroom, where two people move into
one-bedroom apartment in the city.
Twenty-two percent of American households consist of one person living alone, and a third of households consist of two or more people.
- Periapsa Beaver did die in Vietnam. Wally was married briefly, but got a divorce and moved back in with his folks to get his life back together. Ward still works at his vaguely defined white collar job, but his salary hasn't kept up with inflation, so June must go to work. She has no college education or sable skills. He also has an MBA in fashion merchandising degree, then opens a dress shop that does a moderately good business.
- Twenty-one percent of American households consist of both a father and a mother who are wage earners, with one or more children living at home.
- Or the stresses of Ward's job could cause him to have a heart attack and die at the age of 65.
Wally did, so Beaver moves in with his mother to help susn port her.
About seven percent of American households are single parents with one or more children living in them.
*However, if Beaver hadn't moved in with June after Wally and Ward died, she wouldn't have been able to afford that big house in the suburbs on her fixed income, so she would have sold it and moved into an apartment with her sister in Philadelphia.
About five percent of American households are headed by a single person and include
About three percent of American households consist of unrelated persons living together.
- Then Beaver could move in with his girlfriend, although they don't plan to get married, and the government could classify him as a foreigner. Oppose Sex Living together for tax purposes.
- However, if Beaver's girlfriend were to leave him after she had borne his child, Beaver could settle down to a life of single parenthood. Hopefully, he will not make such long-winded speeches to his daughter as his father made to him.
A little under one percent of American
beaches are single-family families headed
by KNED.
My favorite scenario, though, is to let the great American dream as illustrated in "Leave Me Alone."
Ward will always be a terminally middle-aged man dressed in white shirts and narrow black ties, going off to work at his not very demanding job while his wife stays home to cook, dust and raise the children. The kids will always be a squeaky-clean boy who are forever loving their baby brother. If they never get into big trouble like drugs, or getting a girl pregnant or even drinking.
Pull that hull car into the garage and lock up the house in the quiet suburbs somewhere in America for the terminal night of black-and-white television rernurs.
They're playing "Leave It To Beaver" again.
Letters to the Editor
Professor says letter an emotional attack
To the Editor:
The March 9 letter to the editor by Teddi McCullough is an emotional indictment of and a personal attack on University faculty and staff, which contains statements contrary to fact, misconceptions, misrepresentations of responses by faculty members, and false claims of knowledge about personal motivations of the faculty she attacked.
The last sentence of her letter asks: "What other building on the campus is insured for $160 million?" The implication is that the Nuclear Reactor Center is insured for this amount. This is contrary to fact. Neither the center, nor any other building on this campus, is insured for any amount.
She asks: "How can I trust my life in the hands of these men who are not concerned about my health in the least?" This implies knowledge of the personal motivations of several faculty members of which I do not believe she has any knowledge—least of all, mine I find this interesting. So I ask, "How can you refer to me as an inanimate object ('a tool') rather dehumanize and demeaning."
I have been involved as a radiation biologist in radiation health and safety for more than 30 years (education, research and service). I am a member of the Mid-America Cancer Center Program and have served on its Education committee. I have spent 26 years instructing students in the risk of cancer from radiation exposure in my biology course and in the safe handling of radiation sources and radioactive materials.
That experience, combined with the three
I spent $1,000 (transportation, tuition, room and board) of my personal income during one recent summer to acquire specialized education at another university in the discipline of cancer epidemiology with the concurrent loss of three weeks of non-university summer employment.
It requires an enormous effort to develop and offer (and to keep the information current in) a course that has never been offered before. Consequently, it is incomprehensible how McCullough can make the second statement cited above.
summers (while not on university salary) I spent acquiring the background to develop and teach the course in environment and human cancer, contribute to my feeling that it is my course. No one else on this campus helped to develop it or is capable of offering it, and I am teaching it because of my personal concern for the current and future health of students.
Her statements about the possible risk from radiation levels in room 218 of the Nuclear Reactor Center reflect a lack of adequate information and understanding. Implicit in any discussion of the possible effects of radiation is a definition of safety. Nowhere in her letter is there any indication that she has an understanding of the meaning of the word "safe".
Occupancy of room 218 for a few hours each week during a semester could not increase exposure to radiation by more than 1 percent of the natural background radiation (cosmic rays, terrestrial radioactivity and normal internal radioactivity) to which one is normally exposed.
A level of radiation equal to 1 percent of background is considered to be trivial. Persons who live on the Colorado plateau receive 2 to 2.5 times greater levels of background radiation than one receives in Kansas. Those persons who live on the Colorado plateau have incidences of cancer, leukemia and birth defects that are 15 percent lower than in this region of the United States.
"Safe" does not mean zero risk, because no human activity involves zero risk. All the possible low level effects from radiation exposure also occur spontaneously without exposure to manmade or elevated naturally occurring radiation sources.
States. Because levels of radiation in Colorado are greater than the background in Kansas and New Mexico, birth defects, why should one be concerned about an increase of less than 1 percent background?
Philosophies of radiation protection assume that no radiation exposure is without detrimental effects. This assumption is considered to be a fundamental principle for the biological subject (such as the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation of the National Academy of Sciences). There is no experimental proof of detrimental biological effects of radiation in humans, but background radiation in this part of the country
The fact that McCullough has made statements contrary to fact, misrepresented conversions, misinterpreted concepts of science and made false accusations of faculty misconduct, and denied other credibility and the validity of her fears of radiation exposure. Edward I. Show
LEWANDI I. SHOW
professor of radiation biophysics
Letters Policy
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and should not exceed 500 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include his class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters.