Page 4
University Daily Kansan; October.4 1982
Opinion
Keep FacEx in process
The Faculty Executive Committee has proposed changing the way it aids the administration in choosing promotion and tenure committee members.
The amendment to FacEx rules will be discussed at Thursday's meeting of the Faculty Council. It would make FacEx propose a pool of names from which Chancellor Gene A. Budig could choose members. Currently, FacEx recommends nine people, the exact number needed, and the chancellor usually approves the list.
The promotion and tenure committee is responsible for recommending faculty for what amounts to job security and advancement.
The change could end a struggle between the administration and FaeEx over the power to name committee members.
Ellen Gold, a FacEx member who says the amendment would dimish
faculty control in the process, plans to talk to other members this week to work out a proposal that would not change the rules and still be acceptable to FaceEx and to Budig.
But FacEx has the power to name people to the committee only because the chancellor — who has control over the entire process — has delegated that responsibility.
Having FacEx propose a pool of names appears to be an acceptable compromise. It would keep the faculty in the process and put more names before the chancellor, which could give more faculty members the opportunity to serve.
If the issue isn't resolved at the Faculty Council meeting, Budig may be forced to cut the faculty out altogether.
And having one person hand-pick members for a key committee may be expedient, but it would not serve the University's best interests.
Look over inspection results before going out for a bite
And you thought dorm food was bad.
This year, the state health inspector made suprise checkups on 72 of the 97 restaurants in Lawrence, and eight of them did not get a clean bill of health.
Restaurants are given scores of 1 to 100, depending on how well they have met state standards on food protection, sewage disposal, plumbing, ventilation, lighting, equipment cleanliness, water temperature and employee practices.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
CATHERINE BEHAN
breaks down the scores as follows: 90 to 100,
“excellent”, 80 to 89, “good”, 70 to 79,
“acceptable”, 60 to 69, “marginal” and less than
90, “inadequate to protect the public”
In Kansas, the scale is a little more stringent.
Restaurants must score 70 points to pass
inspection.
Although most Lawrence restaurants passed, eight missed the needed 70 points for their first.
—Henry's Drive In, 1117 W. Sith St., received a 68 for its inspection. Results from a second inspection showed that the
'JB's Big Boy Family Restaurant, 740 Iowa St., got a 61 on its first inspection but cleaned up to a high score of 90 three days after the first surprise inspection.
- Perkins Cake and Steak, 1711 W. 23rd St.
went from 60 on its first inspection to a low of 56 for its second but pulled through a few days later with a passing grade of 72.
- -Nabell, the 925 Iowa St., passed its first inspection with a score of 72, missed passing a follow-up the next month with a score of 68 but pulled its score up to 91 a few days later.
- Pizza Hut, 932 Massachusetts St., missed the passing mark with a score of 66.
—Another pizza shop, Valentino's Pizza, 544 W. 23rd St., scored a 65 on its pre-opening inspection but brought it up to a high 93 a few hours later.
—Village Imm Pancake House, 821 Iowa St. boosted that the lowest score of the year, 51, to 80, and finally to 100, a perfect score, a few months later.
- *Western Sizzlin' Streak House*, 2620 Iowa ST. scored 65. Results from a second inspection have not been reported.
It seems to me that eating out, except on the day of a follow-up visit by Lana Obourey, is very safe.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment, is a risky business.
One reason there are so many restaurants in Lawrence is that many college students — especially those living in dorms or fraternities or sororites who do not get served Sunday dinner, or who are just sick of food cooked for large people — depend on restaurants for decent food.
Gung out for a meal, a necessity for those who hate to cook, used to be a nice treat for me. Now I am not so sure I want to risk that the restaurant is having a bad day.
It might be that on that day, the restaurant's conditions would not be adequate to protect the
Why. I wonder, is it possible that a restaurant that gets a really low rating can turn around and get a high score several months, days or even hours after the surprise inspection?
Could it be that some restaurants are not really trying to be clean, neat, safe and healthy?
That's hardly likely. If they do not keep their food safe and their restaurants clean, they stand to lose customers. But I wonder how many restaurants that did pass — and many barely made it with scores in the low 70s — might not have passed the day before or after.
Maybe the restaurants that did not pass were having unusually bad days, but how many of those that did pass were having unusually good days?
For the inspections scoring system, more weight is attached to standards that might cause food-borne illnesses than to aesthetic problems, such as a dirty floor or unwashed table.
These ratings, then, are very important, because very few of us go into restaurants with thermometers to see whether the air temperature is cool enough to prevent food spoilage, or go back to the Kitchen to see whether the food is cooked and check to see that sewage disposal is adequate.
What I am most concerned about when I go out for a meal is whether the food taste good, my waiter or waitress is quick and my table is free from the last customer's scraps.
I would notice a cookbook crawling on the floor or a dirty fork, but I probably would not leave that restaurant unless there were several bugs and everything was dirty.
Unfortunately, we often take for granted that we might be getting really bad food.
Obsburr said she was trying to educate restaurant managers about the state standards for food safety.
"We're not trying to act as a policeman. We don't want to close people down," she said.
The health department will not shut down a restaurant unless it keeps falls inspections and does not correct serious violations.
But I think I will be a little more careful when I go to a restaurant. A nice decor and pleasant service does not necessarily a healthy restaurant make.
KANSAN
The University Daily
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newsroom--864-4810
Business Phone--864-4358
eru. University Daily Kannan (USF36-60-44) is published at the University of Kannan, 118 Pint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 6004, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer months. Subscription fee is $15 for six months or $72 in Douglas County. Lawrence, Kan. 6004. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $72 in Douglas County. The student activity fee. POSTMATER. Send address changes to the University Daily Kannan.
Editor
Geen George
Managing Editor
Editorial Editor
Campus Editor
Assoc. Campus Editor
Amantis Campus Editors
Sports Editor
Associate Sports Editor
Entertainment Editor
Product Manager
Makeup Editor
Wire Editors
Photographer
Photographer
David Hornbech, Ben Biger, Steven Moolocky, Dan Pugh
Copy Chair
Copy Chair
Statistical Columns
Staff Artists
National Sales Manager
Campus Sales Manager
Classified Manager
Production Manager
Staff Artist/Photographer
General Manager and News Advisor
Business Manager
Brian Cooksey
Steve Rebbey
Hershey Chaney
Mark Steinem
Bran Levinson
Colleen Caoq, Ann Lowry
Brian Lowry
Tom Cook
Lilian Davis
Bucky Rebbey, Jon Burr Ehl
Jain Margary, Amine Calvellier, Cathy Behan
Richard Sugg
David Hornbech, Ben Biger, Steven Moolocky, Dan Pugh
Tracez Hamilton
Ton Sharp, Denise M叭u
Cathy Behan, Tom Bullon, Hilkopter
Tracee Harman, Tom Bullon, Hilkopter
Kosemary Herman, Bill Wylla
Jane Wendertor
Matthew Laganau
Margaret Hanager
Amy Horbergener
Mike Ramberg
Mike Ramberger
John Pas
When the federal government's anti-pollution standards for 1975 model cars took effect, two vehicles were excluded.
These products, the catalytic converter and unleaded gasoline, soon became integral parts of nearly every American and foreign car. They were designed to help clean up the smog-ridden cities of America by removing harmful carbon monoxide fumes and rendering them harmless.
But the big auto manufacturers neglected to tell the public that they would be footing the bill for cleaner air. Unleaded gasoline costs 5 to 7 cents a gallon. But as the economy began, the 1975 cars emitted a "rotten egg" smell.
Soon after the introduction of the new cars, owners complained about a loss of performance and worried about the cost of replacing the catalytic converter when the car's exhaust system were out. The companies paid no notice to the complaint and continued to produce cars with the converters.
Since 1975, the United States has survived gas shortages, skypeting inflation, economic recessions and high unemployment rates. But catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline didn't change — they continued to appear on cars every year since 1975.
Not long after 1975, shady companies began to cash in on the catalytic converter bonanza. However, these companies specialized in defeating the cleansing converters.
which often consisted only of a steel pipe, allowed the converters to be bypassed and pollutants to flow into the air.
Ads appeared in the back of automobile and mechanics' magazines and proclaimed increased fuel mileage and more performance through the use of conversion kits. These kits,
As one might guess, the kits were effective. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated the kits increased a car's pollutants by up to eight times.
A trend started to grow among motorists to tamper with their auto pollution controls in the mistaken belief that they could increase fuel economy or car performance.
economy or car performance.
Recent checks by the EPA indicate that
TOM HUTTON
pollution controls on 20 percent of Americans cars had been tampered with, and on 8 percent of the cars checked, the catalytic converters had been removed.
Usually the tampering or removal of pollution controls is not undertaken by an average motorist. Competent backyard mechanics were confused by the mazes of hoses and wiring underneath the hoods of post-1975 cars and left the tampering to local garages. They also worked for a year in a university engineering work in a matter of minutes with a cutting torch and a wrench. They also tried to
defeat the desire of most Americans to be able to breathe clean air.
The EPA stood for a long time before deciding to prosecute those individuals and garrages that removed pollution controls. But the EPA has had an "ugly set" campaign against violators.
Since most government agencies, the EPA is not playing for small sums of money. Garages can be fined $2,500 for each converter they remove. Neither manufacturers of the "conversion kits" nor individuals who remove the transformers or legal laws, but can be prosecuted under state laws.
A cab company and four muffler shops were named by the EPA last week as violators of federal laws. The EPA is seeking combined fines of $227,500 against the shops.
As the owner of a 1977 catalytic converter-equipped car, I would be the first to agree that higher gas prices and occasional fumes are unpleasant and sometimes painful to the wallet.
But, according to my car owner's manual, there are advantages to the lead-free gas and the smelly converter. Maintenance intervals are longer because the fuel burns more cleanly, and exhaust systems are supposed to last longer also.
A few cents at the gas pump, no matter what the disadvantages of the catalytic converters. The gasoline is very cheap.
Those people who remove pollution control devices are not only hiding themselves, but also protecting themselves.
I don't particularly care for someone blowing smoke in my face, whether it be from a cigarette or a bottle.
Letters to the Editor
Postcards meant to encourage applicants
To the Editor:
The editorial and story on Sept. 27 concerning our voluntary postcard system for collecting data about job applicants overlooked the purpose of the system.
When a particular group is underrepresented in the University's work force, it is generally for one of two reasons: either members of the group do not apply for positions, or they do apply but are not selected. The new postcard system is intended to help us evaluate the extent to which members of various groups are applying for positions in the various departments.
The postcard system also asks applicants to tell us how they learned about the vacancy. That information will help each department evaluate which advertising vehicles are most effective, and determine if the staff is tabulating the information and providing it to the appropriate departments in the near future.
The information we collect is not intended for use in identifying specific applicants as members of particular groups. The idea is to attract increasing numbers of well-qualified applicants who are members of affected classes, and in that way to eliminate one of the reasons for the underrepresentation of certain groups in the University's work force.
Juanita Wehrle-Einhorn Interim director Office of affirmative action
Opinion-ads irksome
To the Editor:
The time has come for a basic question to be asked: Who is William Damn, and why are we continually regulated with his opinions in the informal-World and the University Daily Kansas?
By my count, we have been inflicted by this man's "views" at least 15 times in the last six weeks, if not more. The final straw came Sept. 29
with his "editorial" entitled "Grappling with a Reazanism Rousatabout."
What point is Dann making? He runs the gauntlet from amateur athletics to federal economic policies to local economic policies to Thomas Jefferson to Rousseau without the slightest indication that he or anyone else knows where he is taking us.
Dann is apparently upset that someone can support both Reaganism and local government expenditures for downtown renewal. He quotes Jefferson to the effect that good governments only "restrain men from injuring one another" and should stay out of the affairs of
However, Dann turn around and advocates that the federal government pursue a policy of full employment. Thus he advocates that government should not meddle in the affairs of private industry and that government should meddle in the affairs of private industry.
The only food for thought provided by Dann's
digression is that one wonders how someone
unemployed affords to run so many expensive
ads.
Let us be clear on one point: I do not object to Dann's expressing his opinions. I feel that this continuing stream of incoherence on Dann's part need not be inflicted on the public day after day.
Surely if Dann has such amounts of money to spare, he could find any number of worthy places to visit and locations that surely there are more worthwhile items for our local newspapers to publish.
David P. Robin
We also deplore the massacre. . . .
Infants also massacred
sorrow for the suffering of others. Most everyone has compassion and deep sympathy for those who are suffering.
This was the beginning paragrap of an editorial in the Sept. 24 Lawrence Journal-World concerning the bloody massacre of hundreds of civilian Palestinians in Beirut.
DAVI P. HOMM
Assistant instructor in Western Civilization
"Surely the great majority of the people of the world are good individuals who have genuine
The sad thing is, "the great majority of the people of the world" aren't good people who have genuine sorrow for the suffering of others. The reason I say this is that there is a "massacre" going on every day across the world, and no one seems to deplore it.
This massacre that I'm referring to is the aborting of babies. There are approximately 1.5 million babies "massacred mercilessly" every year. These babies are living human beings from the point of conception. Therefore, their lives are being taken innocently.
The Lebanese Christian army had no "right to choose" when these Palestinian civilians should die; nor do we have any "right to choose" when these babies should die. The mother may not want to keep her so-called mistake, but there are literally thousands of people who are wanting to adopt a baby if they were only enough to meet this need.
Is anyone demonstrating on KU campus about this massacre? Is anyone writing letters to the editor exhorting people to unite against such violence? Is anyone practicing among the "good people of the world"?
I don't condone the killings in Beirut, nor do I condene the killing of these innocent babies. Why doesn't the media show film clips of these shorted babies on television and in the newspapers like they have been the massacred Palestinians? Then the "good people of the world" could see what is going on behind closed doors!
Carmen Penny Lancaster special student