YU
Weather
The University Daily Kansan
Today: Partly cloudy with a high of 68 and a low of 42.
Tomorrow: Scattered showers with a high of 54 and a
low of 38.
THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS Thursday, November 2, 2000
Jayplay: Students turn to prescription amphetamines for energy boosts.
SEE PAGE 1B
Sports: The men's basketball team disposed of the California All-Stars last night.
SEE PAGE 8A
(USPS 650-640) VOL.111 NO.48 For comments, contact Nathan Willis or Chris Borniger at 864-4810 or e-mail editor@kansan.com
Commission says no to ordinance
WWW.KANSAN.COM
By Matt Merkel-Hess and Kursten Phelps
writer@kansan.com
Kansas staff writers
The Lawrence Planning Commission voted last night against a proposed ordinance that would limit the number of unrelated people who can live in single-family neighborhoods.
The Commission had two slightly different versions of the proposed text amendment to consider and denied both with votes of five to three.
The Planning Commission is an advisory committee only. The City Commission will conduct a final hearing on the proposal later this month.
One of the Planning Commission's main questions about the proposal was enforcement. Linda Finger, Lawrence planning director, said the current limit of four unrelated people in single-family neighborhoods was hard to enforce.
"We don't have a very good record on trying to enforce that at this point in time," she said.
The Planning Commission unanimously approved a motion to initiate investigations of parking regulations, landlord registration and city code enforcement to solve the problems raised at last night's public hearing by students, homeowners and landlords.
Grant Butler, Student Senate Landlord/Tenant subcommittee chairman, said he was pleased with the final motion to initiate further investigation.
"Landlord registration would be beneficial to both the homeowners and students," he said.
Arly Allen, a representative of the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said he hoped the argument of neighborhood residents would fare better at the City Commission.
"This is not a frivolous issue — it's the heart of Lawrence," he said. "This is the most critical issue facing Lawrence at the present time."
About 60 students, including nine representatives of Student Senate, crowded the commission chamber and foyer of City Hall for the meeting, which lasted until 11:30 p.m.
Ben Walker, student body president, presented a petition signed by 1,769 students opposing the ordinance and a Senate resolution that opposes the proposed change as unfairly targeting students as a specific demographic.
Jessica Bankston, Student Legislative Awareness Board legislative director, said the concerns of Lawrence residents were valid but that other avenues, such as a disorderly house ordinance passed in June, could alleviate problems if given time to take effect.
Erin Simpson, off-campus senator, said that because the city couldn't legally base an ordinance on students' ages, it used its status as unrelated residents. The city's equal opportunity in housing policy prohibited it from passing an ordinance based on age.
Alen said in his opening remarks that the U.S. Supreme Court had supported limits of two unrelated people in single-family neighborhoods.
"The use of zoning is the appropriate method to protect family values in neighborhoods," he said.
Marlon Marshall, student body vice president, said it was not obvious who lived in certain houses or whether residents were related, which he worried could lead to unequal enforcement based on assumptions and biases.
He said he was concerned that selective enforcement would target specific groups of the University's diverse population.
"We don't want any members of certain groups in our communities to feel ostracized or unwanted in their neighborhoods' or in Lawrence," he said.
— Edited by Shawn Hutchinson
Jessica Bankston, Student Legislative Awareness Board legislative director, addresses the Lawrence Planning Commission last night regarding the proposed housing ordinance amendment. Nine student senators voiced opposition to the ordinance at the meeting. Photo by Craig Bennett/KANSAN
Med Center clinics could be relocated this winter
By Melissa Davis
writer @kanson.com
Kansas staff writer
Members of the University of Kansas Medical Center's family medicine and obstetrics and gynecology clinics say they were told last week that they might be moving to Johnson County. Some employees believe the move would hurt the Med Center's credibility, its students and its patients.
Staff who work on the first floor of the University's Med Center in Kansas City, Kan., which is dedicated to family medicine, and those working in the fourth floor obstetrics and gynecology offices would be displaced to make room for a cardiac transplant team from St. Luke's Health System of Kansas City, Mo., said Gary Bachman, assistant professor of family medicine.
Bachman said that he had been notified of the move but that the date was not final. The date the cardiac transplant team would move in has not been set either, he said.
"We were told about the move last week," he said. "We were told we were to move. It was a done deal."
MED CENTER CHANGES
What's happening: Employees at the Medical Center say the center plans to move its family medicine and obstetrics and gynecology clinics, which serve most of Wyandotte County, to Johnson County to make room for a team of cardiac transplant specialists.
What it means: Many Wyandotte residents who depend on public transportation could be without health care because they cannot get to the new location.
Resident physicians might be left without an accredited program if the new clinic is not approved by the Residency Review Committee. Enrollment could drop because students might not want to attend a medical school that is not located at one site.
But Mary Ball, vice president for public relations and marketing for the Med Center, said there was no move in the future.
When asked about the new cardiology department, Corrine Everson, public relations director for St. Luke's Hospital, said information about the move had not yet been made public.
Chancellor Robert Hemenway is on vacation and could not be reached for comment. Donald Hagen, executive vice chancellor; Chris Hansen, vice president of ambulatory services at the hospital; and Bob Hallinan, Med Center media relations coordinator, did not return phone calls Tuesday or yesterday.
What's next: the proposed move could take place just after the first of the year.
"That is not public information," she said. "We're expecting an announcement, but we don't have anything yet."
"There are no plans to remove primary care from the Med Center or Wyandotte County," she said. "I speak for the hospital. I'm telling you this information is untrue."
Med Center staff members besides Bachman said a move would happen in the
See MOVE on page 3A
After the storm
Nahoko Azeta, Chiba, Japan, freshman, steps for a moment after class to watch the sunset after a series of rain showers moved through the area yesterday. The forecast today calls for a partly cloudy sky with the possibility of more scattered showers. Photo by Carrie Julian/KANSAN
State control of tuition could change
By Kursten Phelps
Kansan staff writer
The University of Kansas could get more control of the tuition its students pay, possibly translating into more money overall, if the Kansas Legislature approves a new budget plan.
The plan, which was approved by the Board of Regents during its October meeting, would give Regents universities, including the University of Kansas, block grant funding and the responsibility of raising and spending its own tuition dollars. With block grant funding, the University receives its funds in one lump sum and has more control of how it is spent.
The University and the Legislature determine a total budget. The money to finance that budget comes from tuition revenues and state support. If the determined KU budget is $200 million, and the University brings in $80 million in tuition dollars, the state grants $120 to the University's budget, said Marlin Rein, KU director of budget and governmental affairs.
Rein said that system put the University at a disadvantage because it brought in more tuition money and received a smaller proportion of funding from the state than schools that raise less tuition money. He said KU students paid about 42 percent of the cost of their education, while students at regional schools such as Emporia State paid about 25 percent of their cost.
TUITION PAYMENT
What happened: The Board of Regents approved a new plan that would allow individual universities to collect and spend their own tuition dollars.
What it means: If approved by the Kansas Legislature, the University of Kansas would have more flexibility in its spending and could end up with more money in its budget.
What's next: the proposal will go to the Kansas legislature for approval in the coming session, which starts in January.
"The proposal wants to separate tuition from the budget process and focus only on what should be the fair level of state support for KU," Rein said. "The question is, should KU get the same level of funding increases as other schools in the system? We think so."
Rein said the administration hoped the new plan would mean more dollars for the University budget, which could improve faculty and unclassified staff salaries.
"I think that without prejudicing how generous the state will be in future budgets, we have to believe that if KU is able to achieve an increase on an annual basis from the state on par with what other campuses receive, then KU will be ahead," Rein said. "The state needs to have the same commitment to this campus as all the rest."
If the new plan were implemented, each university would "own" its tuition. That includes recommending its own tuition
Mindy Berns / KANSAN
increases or decreases, a change that Student Body President Ben Walker said has advantages and disadvantages.
"I agree that it would be more equitable and KU tuition dollars would go to KU, but I am worried about the potential in the future that tuition increases could become more prevalent." Walker said.
The new plan would still require tuition recommendations be approved by the Board of Regents, but Walker said he
was worried whether the Board would approve University recommendations. But students would have a more direct link to the decision-making process if it occurred at the University level, he said.
"I don't think it would be a problem to give us the opportunity to have input," he said. "It makes logical sense, and the chancellor seems to be pretty student-friendly on issues like this."
- Edited by Warisa Chufindra
Pay increases of classified staff remain smaller
By Jason Kraill
writer@kansan.com
Kansan staff writer
Georgia Hunter washes windows, mops floors and sweeps away cigarette butts around Staufer-Flint Hall. She's been working at the University for almost 16 years, and her $558 paycheck every two weeks from the state of Kansas gets stretched between utilities, groceries and tuition. One of her four children attends the University and plans to graduate this semester. Another attends Ottawa University in Ottawa.
Hunter is a classified staff member. Classified staff perform countless services on campus, such as food service, word processing, driving campus buses, mowing lawns, sweeping sidewalks and answering phones. But their pay increases are determined separately from those of teaching faculty members and other unclassified staff.
And in recent years, the classified staff's raise has been proportionately smaller than those for unclassified staff.
"They're always adding work, but they don't want to add more pay," Hunter said. "Now, they want us to do inside and outside work. In the winter, they ask us to shovel snow."
Like many classified employees at the University, Hunter was frustrated last fall when the law Legislature approved a 5.9 percent pay hike for teaching faculty and just a 2.5 percent increase for classified employees.
Salaries for classified employees such as Hunter are not approved by the Kansas Board of Regents, which recommends pay increases for unclassified staff, including teaching faculty members, to the Legislature. Instead, classified employees of the University receive the same raises as other state civil service employees, as determined directly by the state Legislature. The raises are not adjusted for different costs of living in different parts of Kansas.
"We don't get enough pay," she said. "It's very hard. They gave all the professors and teachers raises, and we don't get one. I didn't think that was right."
The Lawrence campus had 1,631 classified employees in Fall 1999, according to the Office of Institutional Research and Planning. This fall's numbers have not yet been released.
Chancellor Robert Hemenway is working with the Board of Regents to have money allocated to the University in the form of a block grant, as opposed to the line-item allocations it currently receives from the state. If that happens, it would give the University greater control of the salaries of its classified staff.
Part of the reason for smaller pay increases in the state civil service is that they are considered by the Legislature as an omnibus item. Omnibus items are considered in April, at the end of a budget session, when most funding already has been allocated for the coming year, and the funding left over is notoriously small.
Mike Auchard, president of Classified Senate, which represents classified staff in University governance, said this showed that state leaders didn't put a high priority on civil service workers.
"We've had a long run in the state of Kansas of very high tax revenues," said Auchard, who is a general maintenance and repair technician at the University. "But instead of using that money effectively to run state government, they've opted to graft tax decreases. I don't think the governor and the Legislature recognize the true value of classified staff."
4 2 6 4
— Edited by Shawn Hutchinson